> Yea. I certainly disagree with the patch in it's current state because
> it copies the same 15 lines several times with a two word difference.
> Independent of whether we want those options, I don't think that's going
> to fly.
I liked a simple static string for the different variants, which means
replication. Factorizing out the (large) common part will mean malloc &
sprintf. Well, why not.
>> OTOH, we've almost reached the consensus that supporting gaussian
>> and exponential options in \setrandom. So I think that you should
>> separate those two features into two patches, and we should apply
>> the \setrandom one first. Then we can discuss whether the other patch
>> should be applied or not.
> Sounds like a good plan.
Sigh. I'll do that as it seems to be a blocker...
The caveat that I have is that without these options there is:
(1) no return about the actual distributions in the final summary, which
depend on the threshold value, and
(2) no included mean to test the feature, so the first patch is less
meaningful if the feature cannot be used simply and require a custom
script.
--
Fabien.
