Skip to content

Only having shape and dataType on Output is unintuitive and hard to find #146

Closed

Description

@rnett

I just spent an hour or so trying to figure out how to get the build-time shape of a graph operation. Had an issue ready to go and everything. It wasn't until I went poking around in the debugger that I realized it was on Output. I realize that there are design reasons to separate the output from the op, but asOutput() already exists, so I think having shape() and dataType() default methods on Operation that use asOutput is worth it from a usage and discovery standpoint.

Activity

  1. karllessard commented on Nov 14, 2020

    @karllessard
    Collaborator

    I agree, these should be added to the Operand interface in fact, with a default implementation that fallbacks to asOutput().shape(), for example.

    Would you be interested doing it?

  2. rnett commented on Nov 14, 2020

    @rnett
    ContributorAuthor

    Yeah, I can handle it.

  3. reopened this on Nov 14, 2020
  4. rnett commented on Dec 9, 2020

    @rnett
    ContributorAuthor

    Fixed by #153

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions