please make callback.h and callback.cpp independent

[fyears]

Now I'm doing #6 (python bridge), but surprisingly find out that callback.h and callback.cpp in Core doesn't exist and rely on the implementation in R.

I really don't think it's a good idea. I thought that the Core is self-contained and only relies on standard libraries in cpp. Please remove the dependence if possible... :-( (Or, how to workaround it in Python Bridge?)

(Maybe <algorithm> is useful here?)

[suiji]

The Arborist relies on several statistical techniques that are typically
better supported by their respective front ends. This is the origin of
the call-back stubs you have encountered. While the project goals are
on-record (see the R/Finance and PyData talks, for example) as favoring
Core implementations over call-backs, it is sometimes necessary to
resort to the latter, particularly in the case of sampling.

There are good reasons why a practitioner may want to train with a
particular random-variate generator or sampling scheme, and exposing the
mapping via call-backs is a practical way to ensure that it is possible
to do so. Weighted sampling, in particular, can be tricky to get right
and we would much rather give the user the ability to benefit from
implementations perfected by experts. This is one reason people use
Numpy, R, etc. - i.e., the ability to leverage the numerical power they
offer.

I am inclined to agree with you in the case of sorting, for example,
and may ultimately recast the sorting utilities within the Core. In the
case of sampling and random-variate generation, however, the mere fact
that 'stdlib' offers an implementation is not necessarily a reason to
use it.

On 05/07/2016 02:58 AM, fyears wrote:

Now I'm doing #6 #6 (python
bridge), but surprisingly find out that |callback.h| and
|callback.cpp| in |Core| doesn't exist and rely on the implementation
in |R|.

I really don't think it's a good idea. I thought that the |Core| is
self-contained and only relies on standard libraries in cpp. Please
remove the dependence if possible... :-( (Or, how to workaround it in
Python Bridge?)

(Maybe || is useful here?)

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#9