Rename stan_data_file_path about posteriordb HOT 6 CLOSED

Yep. Now fixed.

> sdfp <- data_file_path(po)
> sdfp

from posteriordb.

Yes. I think Ill do so that I add the function data_file_path as a more generic solution but keep stan_data_file_path for situations when people use stan.

from posteriordb.

Hmm, would we ever have the situation where two frameworks have different data files? So that stan_data_file_path(po) and pymc_data_file_path(po) would return different results?

Or would it be that stan_data_file_path is just an alias for data_file_path and always returns the same result?

from posteriordb.

I'm not sure. But it may be so that we would need different datasets for different PPFs. As for now, I'll add the data_file_path and then we can see how it develops.

from posteriordb.

Now fixed

from posteriordb.

Should we also change the example in README to use data_file_path?

Personally I think it would be best to remove stan_data_file_path unless we can come up with a concrete situation where two PPFs would need different datasets. I feel it would make the API clearer.

If at some point we end up needing two different data files we can change data_file_path(po) to data_file_path(po, framework = "stan") where "stan" is the default value for the framework optional argument. This change would maintain backward compatability.

from posteriordb.