This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: a few questions about discrete rng
- From: Brian Gough <bjg at network-theory dot co dot uk>
- To: Rodney Sparapani <rsparapa at post dot its dot mcw dot edu>
- Cc: gsl-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:48:08 +0100 (BST)
- Subject: Re: a few questions about discrete rng
- References: <200207091532.g69FWAF11310@post.its.mcw.edu>
Rodney Sparapani writes:
> Brian:
> Apparently, I didn't understand the standards documentation with
> respect to size_t. But, it's too bad about gsl_vector. I think
> this decision should be reconsidered. Also, I remember reading
> that there have been some developments with respect to vectors in
> C99. Might this not also be a good reason to re-think the design?
Nope ;-)
> It is alot easier to pass one parameter than 2 since you can easily
> get them backwards.
gsl's vectors use a stride, which adds unnecessary overhead to array
based functions.
> But, back to discrete with size_t and without gsl_vector. I
> thought that it would be better to streamline it a bit and make it
> look more like the other rng's. I'm attaching an example of that
> which also contains a prototype for a multinomial randist.
> Comments are welcome and please feel free to use this in GSL.
Is there any algorithm better than O(n)?