# HG changeset patch
# User Olivier Delalleau <delallea@iro>
# Date 1283967837 14400
# Node ID d57bdd9a998032b90b7082e281497afc0da84bdc
# Parent  3b1fd599bafd065610931a46522cfdaf28a26a09
learner: Left a comment about James' design

diff -r 3b1fd599bafd -r d57bdd9a9980 doc/v2_planning/learner.txt
--- a/doc/v2_planning/learner.txt	Wed Sep 08 12:55:30 2010 -0400
+++ b/doc/v2_planning/learner.txt	Wed Sep 08 13:43:57 2010 -0400
@@ -268,6 +268,21 @@
 whole saved model just to attach meta-info e.g. validation score.    Choosing this API spills
 over into other committees, so we should get their feedback about how to resolve it.
 
+Comment by OD
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+(I hope it's ok to leave comments even though I'm not in committee... I'm
+interested to see how the learner interface is shaping up so I'll be keeping
+an eye on this file)
+I'm wondering what's the benefit of such an API compared to simply defining a
+new method for each instruction. It seems to me that typically, the 'execute'
+method would end up being something like
+    if instruction == 'do_x':
+        self.do_x(..)
+    elif instruction == 'do_y':
+        self.do_y(..)
+    ...
+so why not directly call do_x / do_y instead?
+
 Just another view/spin on the same idea (Razvan)
 ================================================