Merging namespaces

[Daniel Lee]

I'm in agreement with Bob. I would be happy merging these namespaces to a single math library namespace:

    stan::math

Any objections?

[From: "Higher-Order Namespace Issues with Distributions"]
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Bob Carpenter <ca...@alias-i.com> wrote:

... 

I don't think we need to keep the stan::prob
namespace vs. stan::math namespace distinction.

And I'm not sure about stan::agrad as a namespace.  It was meant to
mean "automatic gradients", so it doesn't even make sense for fvar!

I'd be OK merging all of:

  * stan::math
  * stan::agrad
  * stan::prob

It'd make the argument-dependent lookup easier to manage.

[Bob Carpenter]

We also need the uber-include at least for reverse mode so
I can put it in the agrad-rev paper.

For now, how do I make sure to bring in all reverse-mode
functionality short of including model-header?

- Bob

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "stan development mailing list" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stan-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Betancourt]

I think we should define general functionals independent of the model code that live in stan::math, no?

[Daniel Lee]

Bob, no uber-includes, yet. I'll get on that this week.

Michael, that's what both of us are suggesting, I think.

[Daniel Lee]

uber-includes: issue #1438. I'm on it. For now, bring in stan/model/model_header.hpp -- sorry about that.

Daniel