Rice distribution

[Ed Smith-Rowland]

On 09/06/2012 05:06 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 12:34 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>> What do you guys think?
> Great idea. But let's make sure everything is consistent and up to 
> date, as Ulrich also noticed, both in terms of code and testcases.
>
> Also, well, we still have to make the final decision whether we want 
> __rice_distribution or rice_distribution. You see, Ed, your nice offer 
> made me think that in fact it's not *obvious* *which* additional 
> distributions will be standardized at the next occasion... that seems 
> a further argument in favor of just going with the double underscore 
> in front, for now. In case, adding "unuglified" typedefs will be 
> trivial...
>
> Paolo.
>
I think we should double underscore beta and the multivariate normal and 
all the ext components just to be safe.  I am certain that beta would be 
added as standard - the library needs at least one bathtub 
distribution.  But we could just call the uglified one when this happens.