-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 174
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Addition of variance function in stdlib_experimental_stats #144
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e966e7b
addition of variance
jvdp1 044abc5
varaince_dev: update var modules
jvdp1 d77b6e9
variance_dev: update spec var
jvdp1 baabfc8
variance_dev: changed ieee_value() as proposed
jvdp1 9b19154
variance_dev: remove support of complex because it was wrong
jvdp1 da90a89
variance_dev: addition of variance of complex as (var(real(x)) + var(…
jvdp1 2a0182a
variance_dev: use fypp to avoid abs in real functions
jvdp1 01e897c
variance_dev:suggestions by @aradi
jvdp1 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will raise this issue elsewhere, but I do not agree with this API for the return type when the input is integer data. I only bring it up here because it is not quite correct to say that the return type is
double precision
, when in fact the type isreal(real64)
. I'm not suggesting any changes now.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nshaffer Thank you for your review.
I used
double precision
because they are declared asdp
. But I agree they are actuallyreal(real64)
. The issue with usingreal64
in the spec is that if the definition ofdp
in
stdlib_experimental_kinds
changes (there has been already discussions on that), then we will need to modify the spec too.Would it be better to write "..... the result is of type
dp
."?