-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Syntax with type parameter {m}
in OrdinalPatterns
is not harmonious with the rest of the library
#394
Comments
This would not be breaking, so should be fine. Either alternative is good with me. |
This is high priority now, because that is the syntax we use in the paper. ANother thing I am taken aback we haven't closed yet. Damn, I should have gone thorugh the issues list before putting the paper online. |
Are you on it, or should I do it, @Datseris ? |
Note that we also need to change |
haven't started yet! |
Actually, the syntax |
For |
and probably also move the code from deprecated.jl into the main source. |
Decision to be made: should Dispersion(; c = 5, m = 2, τ = 1, check_unique = true)
CosineSimilarityBinning(; m::Int, τ::Int, nbins::Int)
SequentialPairDistances(x::AbstractVector; n = 3, metric = Chebyshev(), m = 3, τ = 1)
etc... while (after updating syntax) we have OrdinalPatterns(m = 3, τ = 1, lt::Function = ComplexityMeasures.isless_rand) # positional
# and the same for the other ordinal pattern outcomes spaces I like keyword arguments better. Any objections? |
Keyword arguments are fine! |
Making the ordinal patterns take
m
as a type parameter, as opposted to a keyowrd, was likely a mistake. Does it have a perforamnce benefit? If it does, it can only have one ifm
is given as a constant literal,3
, and not if it is given as a variablem
, because in the later case the type can anyways not be inferred.However, there are so many other types/outcome spaces that do delay embedding, yet
m
is a keyword. E.g., Dispersion, Cosine, etc. This is not harmonious and can even be confusing to a user ("why does one takem
in one way and the other in another way...?").I think we should revert the ordinal pattern decision and make it be a keyword there as well...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: