Carlos Parada

I'd like to say, I definitely like this! Thanks for the hard work David. > (I'm not sure if this is a good idea anyway since it seems to increase...

> Cool idea but this might involve some work. > > Current distributions in this package only have finite dimensional parameters: `d = Normal(μ, σ²)` Where each parameter is a...

The similarity to `*` is definitely a big problem if we keep the current notation for linear transformations of variables -- `x∗y` and `x*y` would mean two very different things.

A few more comments: 1. If we don't want `\oplus` but want to keep something that looks like addition, we also have `\boxplus`. 2. `x \ast y` is appropriate if...

I have a proposal; how about a macro that lets users clarify whether they want to treat a distribution as its pdf or random variable? `@iid_rv x + y` would...

> I don't think one should add a custom DSL to Distributions, so I think such macros should not be added (in general, I think one should limit the use...

I agree on the array-like variates bit and actually started work on that yesterday. I agree we should encourage and use `*`, `+`, `/`, and `-` over `affine`, but I...

Unrelated to the previous comments, we might want some field name other than `scale`, which seems to be a bit too easy to confuse with the `scale` function. Greek letters...

@devmotion it turns out that this is already implemented in MeasureTheory.jl, and quite nicely too. Chad offered to move it to MeasuresBase, since you mentioned you'd be interested in adding...

Got it; I'll rewrite this to handle `+` and `*` directly.