Re: [Rd] dgamma error condition?

From: Prof Brian Ripley <ripley_at_stats.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue 08 Nov 2005 - 07:44:41 GMT

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Ben Bolker wrote:

>
> There's an apparent inconsistency between the
> behavior of d(pqr)gamma and other distribution
> functions for "bad" parameter values. Specifically,
> most distributions give NaN and a warning for bad
> parameters (e.g. probabilities <0 or >1). In contrast,
> d(pqr)gamma actually gives an error and stops when shape<0.
> I don't see why it has to be this way -- the internal
> C code is set up to detect shape<0 (or scale<0) and
> return NaN and a warning, and none of the other
> distribution functions in that bit of the code have
> similar behavior.
>
> It would seem more consistent (and would be more
> convenient for me -- the error-instead-of-warning
> is making me have to jump through additional hoops)
> if dgamma just returned NaN and a warning.
>
> Any thoughts?

No one has come up with any, so let us remove the errors in R-devel.

Note that rgamma is not protected at C level: try rgamma(10, -2), or (worse) rgamma(10, -20) after removing the stop() call.

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Received on Tue Nov 08 18:52:59 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 20 Feb 2006 - 03:21:33 GMT