You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Implementing #90, I now see that rel() becomes cumbersome to support henceforth (it already was) and that it becomes somewhat ambiguous for categorical predictors. Users seem to misunderstand it anyway.
Remove all code for rel()
Add support for prior = list(groupX_2 = "groupX_1+ DEFAULT", catY_3 = "catY_1 + dnorm(0, 1) T(0, )"). The returned parameter should be the distribution part so the JAGS code needs to be like catY_1_return ~ dnorm(0, 1) T(0, ); catY_1 = catY_1 + catY_3
Add explicit informative deprecation error if a user uses rel().
Update code documentation
Update vignettes
An advantage of this approach is that it expands functionality: allows relativity across segments (not just the former), it allows percentage-wise relativity (divide), etc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Implementing #90, I now see that
rel()
becomes cumbersome to support henceforth (it already was) and that it becomes somewhat ambiguous for categorical predictors. Users seem to misunderstand it anyway.prior = list(groupX_2 = "groupX_1+ DEFAULT", catY_3 = "catY_1 + dnorm(0, 1) T(0, )")
. The returned parameter should be the distribution part so the JAGS code needs to be likecatY_1_return ~ dnorm(0, 1) T(0, ); catY_1 = catY_1 + catY_3
rel()
.An advantage of this approach is that it expands functionality: allows relativity across segments (not just the former), it allows percentage-wise relativity (divide), etc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: