Rethinking the package name for a second about posterior

[jgabry]

Yeah I know what you mean. I think since mostly this is for posterior draws (e.g. the MCMC diagnostics aren't for prior draws) then it's ok to use the name posterior (I like the name too!), but we should make it clear in the doc and examples that it's for priors too.

[jgabry]

I just pushed an update to posterior-package.R that mentions this:

https://github.com/jgabry/posterior/blob/0df1e1aad39a44c2f5817881763e6fc44a110b8f/R/posterior-package.R#L1-L17

Although feel free to change anything I pushed if it's inaccurate or not clear enough

[paul-buerkner]

Thank you! That sounds very reasonable to me. @mjskay any objections to keeping the name posterior?

[mjskay]

Nah, posterior works for me, it is catchy.

[paul-buerkner]

Great! Closing this issue now.