On Wed, 23 May 2018, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Am 23.05.2018 um 17:10 schrieb Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
>
>>> So should we go with this default?
>>
>> I like this.
>>
>
> Hm, hold on a second.
>
> We also use the bandwidth argument to flag if we want the leave-one-out
> estimator or not (via its sign).
>
> I'm afraid the best way to handle this would be introducing a
> backward-incompatible change. I can't see an easy way out of this.
Well, the default then would not work for this leave-one-out thing, requiring
an explicit input, but that's it. I don't know how popular this
leave-out-variant is, would it be so bad? (Not worse than the status quo,
mind you.)
Actually, the leave-one-out variant is often preferable, so if we had to
have a default value for that as well I would like to have it on.
In general the whole issue is not a big thing of course.
Obviously not.
-------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali (DiSES)
Università Politecnica delle Marche
(formerly known as Università di Ancona)
r.lucchetti(a)univpm.it
http://www2.econ.univpm.it/servizi/hpp/lucchetti
-------------------------------------------------------