Re: Problems with my first package:Statistics`Common`RegressionCommon`BestFitParameters instead ofBestFitParameters
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg58115] Re: Problems with my first package:Statistics`Common`RegressionCommon`BestFitParameters instead ofBestFitParameters
- From: David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:43:18 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <d90soh$8uq$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
David Annetts wrote:
> Hi Frank
>
> <snippage>
>
>>ExportedFunction[whatever_,options___]:=Block[{...},
>>...
>>RegressResult=NonlinearRegress[...]
>>...
>>Return[Switch[verbosity /. {options},
>> 0, BestFitParameters /. RegressResult,
>> 1, {NMinResultReport, RegressResult}
>> ]];
>>]
>>
>>With verbosity->0, everything is fine now, but with 1 I get:
>>...
>>Statistics`Common`RegressionCommon`BestFitParameters -> {a ->
>>0.500455,
>> b -> 0.999833},
>>...
>>
>>where I expected simply
>>
>>BestFitParameters -> {a -> 0.500455, b -> 0.999833},
>>
>>Can you tell me, without me creating a minimal example, what
>>I can do to simplify the Return value?
>
>
> It's difficult to tell what the problem might be with a code excerpt, but
> you might try
>
> Return[Switch[verbosity /. {options},
> 0, BestFitParameters /. RegressResult,
> 1, NMinResultReport]
> ];
>
> This depends on something like
> NMinResultReport = {various options} /. RegressResult;
> in your function.
>
> I'd also recommend using True and False rather than 0 and 1 for your
> options. Yes, we can write Fortran in Mathematica, but why bother, since
> True is so much easier to read, and more keeping with other Mathematica
> functions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave.
>
Even Fortran has a LOGICAL data type!
David Bailey
http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk