Skip to content
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

Handle the index for a node not being an integer (e.g. "index=NA") #403

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2023

Conversation

bredelings
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #400

@davidcerny
Copy link
Contributor

This all looks good to me. I assume lines 1433–1436 in Tree.cpp are for exceptions that we can't handle using RbException but that can still be handled using the standard library?

Also, that's interesting that dnMultiSpeciesCoalescentInverseGamma is parameterized using shape and scale rather than shape and rate (which is how dnInverseGamma does it). To prevent confusion, it might be worth calling these arguments kappa and theta rather than alpha and beta, maybe?

@bredelings
Copy link
Contributor Author

This all looks good to me. I assume lines 1433–1436 in Tree.cpp are for exceptions that we can't handle using RbException but that can still be handled using the standard library?

Right.

Also, that's interesting that dnMultiSpeciesCoalescentInverseGamma is parameterized using shape and scale rather than shape and rate (which is how dnInverseGamma does it). To prevent confusion, it might be worth calling these arguments kappa and theta rather than alpha and beta, maybe?

So, that change just updates RbHelpDatabase to match the *.md files. The change in the parameters has already been made (by someone else) -- this just updates the documentation.

I do agree that there is some confusion about the parameter names. Usually I use alpha and beta for the shape and scale, but I see that wikipedia suggests k and theta. I have more opinions, but I suppose the main thing is that we should be consistent. Buuuuut... other people made these changes and I don't have time to make all the parameterizations consistent right now.

@davidcerny davidcerny merged commit 3ad7874 into development Nov 2, 2023
20 checks passed
@bredelings
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks!

@bredelings bredelings mentioned this pull request Dec 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants