feat: support lambdify to tensorflow #245
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #245 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 78.81% 77.70% -1.12%
==========================================
Files 13 13
Lines 609 619 +10
Branches 89 92 +3
==========================================
+ Hits 480 481 +1
- Misses 95 103 +8
- Partials 34 35 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
spflueger
reviewed
Mar 24, 2021
spflueger
approved these changes
Mar 24, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Many thanks to @mayou36 for pointing out
tf.experimental.numpy!Key point of this module is the automatic type promotion
https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/experimental/numpy#types_2
Note: TF is currently the slowest of the backends for both optimizing and data generation. Could be that #100 offers a way out here and/or that we have to make the lambdifying a bit smarter.