Yes. On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Robin Anil <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
