Re: [Gretl-devel] irf() and fevd()

On Wed, 23 May 2018, Sven Schreiber wrote: > Am 22.05.2018 um 18:51 schrieb Allin Cottrell: >> >> We now have irf() and fevd() functions which go part-way to meeting >> Sven's suggestions. We could go all the way if we reckon it's >> worthwhile (see below). Anyway, at present:

OK, I take that point. So I think we do want a "source" or "shock" argument to fevd().

> The argument in favor of source in fevd is mainly the analogy to irf > I'd say. The "do everything" variant can always come later without > breaking anything; however, it would seem to be much more efficient in > the bootstrap case. I take the IRF efficiency point. And Yes, supporting "0 means all" is something that could easily be added later without breaking backward compatibility.