Mercurial > pylearn
changeset 1045:d57bdd9a9980
learner: Left a comment about James' design
| author | Olivier Delalleau <delallea@iro> |
|---|---|
| date | Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:43:57 -0400 |
| parents | 3b1fd599bafd |
| children | f1732269bce8 |
| files | doc/v2_planning/learner.txt |
| diffstat | 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) [+] |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- 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) ================================================