So how about it? If I keep the patch longer I will get conflicts. Its a major move. Say yes or no
Robin On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Robin Anil <[email protected]> wrote: > I just uploaded a patch for moving DictionaryVectorizer. Take a look > > > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Robin Anil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok. >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Or just flat in o.a.m.vectorizer. There aren't a lot of classes we are >>> talking about. >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Robin Anil <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > i.e >>> > o.a.m.vectorizer.dictionary >>> > o.a.m.vectorizer.hashencoder >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Same question applies to the FeatureValueEncoder family currently >>> under >>> > > classifier.vectors.* >>> > > >>> > > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Robin Anil <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > How do you feel like moving the DictionaryVectorizer and Colloc >>> > generator >>> > > > to >>> > > > the Core under vectorizers package instead of keeping them under >>> utils. >>> > > > FeatureEncoders will also be moved under vectorizers. I want to add >>> a >>> > > > Wrapper which takes a Vectorizer and converts input data to >>> vectors. >>> > Its >>> > > > the >>> > > > missing piece of the Classifier puzzle >>> > > > >>> > > > o.a.m.vectorizer.dictionary >>> > > > o.a.m.vectorizer.hashed or something funkier? >>> > > > >>> > > > What do you think about this? >>> > > > >>> > > > Robin >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
