-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
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
AbstractReTerm #395
AbstractReTerm #395
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #395 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.32% 95.32%
=======================================
Files 23 23
Lines 1605 1605
=======================================
Hits 1530 1530
Misses 75 75
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Should |
@dmbates Good question. I'm hoping @kleinschmidt has a strong feeling on that, but I'll give it a think. The only downside I see is that StatsModels also has |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If this is just for dispatch then it seems harmless to me. There's no struct to represent full dummy coding (it just creates a new CategoricalTerm
using FullDummyCoding
) so that's not an issue. RandomEffectsTerm
doesn't seem to be used elsewhere in the code (e.g. to restrict what can be stored as the reterms
in the model struct) so no objections there either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Other than the URL change, it looks good.
There is a script in the docs/
directory to create the footnotes automatically.
Co-authored-by: Douglas Bates <[email protected]>
Closes #293. Not sure if this is a good or bad idea. Thoughts, @kleinschmidt ?