-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
require dependent variable to be passed to the model to avoid specifying it in the formula #79
Comments
one solution to the problem you told me at lunch would be write a bmm formula function similar to brms::bf, in which we have more flexibility, though I suspect this might be a lot of work and not sure if it's worth it. Just an idea |
although maybe we should stick with the current syntax to be consistent with brms |
Yes, I thought a bit about possible solutions as well, but did not come up with one yet. I will have to look into this in more detail for the ezDM implementations anyway. But for now, I would keep the formula syntax the way it is. |
I have looked a bit into the object created by the I think it should be possible to write a simple I will check this out at the beginning of next week and keep you updated. |
that's along the lines of what I was thinking above. Glad to hear it is simpler than expected! |
I had a bit of time to look into this and thing I should be able to provide a solution. This also entails checking if formulas for all model parameters were specified and throwing a warning if this is not the case while only estimating a fixed intercept for them. I will keep you posted on the progress and then we can see, if the solution seems feasible for all models and also in the long run. But for some models, such as The ezDM, I will certainly use this functionality. So, I will keep exploring this anyway. |
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: