Skip to content

Conversation

fweber144
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #533 (how I would imagine it). This builds on top of branch fix531 (from #532), so #532 should be merged first.

…RUE`) and

for the fix of stan-dev#531, it is easier if separate `return_group_terms` cases do not
exist, so remove that argument here
@fweber144 fweber144 mentioned this pull request Aug 23, 2025
@fweber144
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Tagging @aloctavodia.

@aloctavodia
Copy link

Could this just be combined with #532, or do you prefer to keep PRs more "atomic" as they handle slightly different issues?

@fweber144
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Could this just be combined with #532, or do you prefer to keep PRs more "atomic" as they handle slightly different issues?

They could be combined. I tend to prefer more atomic PRs, but I'm not sure if I always adhere to that principle myself 😄 In this case, I guess another motivation for different PRs was that I was a bit less sure if this fix here (in #534) is really correct, in the sense that it reflects @AlejandroCatalina's ideas when he implemented split_group_term(). In the meantime, however, I am quite sure that it must have been this way, so if you prefer to have this in #532, I can combine them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Inconsistency in split_group_term() for add_lower_terms = FALSE
2 participants