Hi Ryan, I have submitted my draft proposal through the GSoC portal. There, I have written my ideas in a much more clear way and giving examples wherever possible. I have also provided proof of concept. It would be better if you can provide your feedback over there. Thanks in advance.
Regards, Nippun Sharma On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 7:29 PM Nippun Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ryan, > Thanks for your feedback. > > >> Why not just use the existing algorithms that we have implemented? They >> are already grouped into categories. >> > > I meant the currently implemented algorithms only. Yes, I saw that they > are already > grouped for documentation purposes, thanks. > > Please keep in mind that the questions highlighted in that issue are >> starting places for a design. The purpose is not to provide specific >> questions which require specific answers, but instead to mention some >> issues that probably require some deep thought as part of a proposal. >> The questions aren't even comprehensive---as you work on your proposal, >> be sure to spend time understanding the existing code and system so that >> you can have an idea of whether what you're proposing is feasible to do >> in the amount of time that you'll have. >> >> > Sure, I will keep these points in mind while writing the proposal and try > to include things that > are feasible in the limited period of time. > > > I had some doubts that I encountered while writing my proposal: > 1) This is related to changing the markdown binding documentations. An > easy way to tackle this problem can be to write the documentation of the > "_fit_main.cpp", "_predict_main.cpp" individually (similar to what has been > done for "gmm_generate", "gmm_train"). Here, we might have to change > certain macros such as the PRINT_CALL macro to change the code snippet > shown in the docs. We can also group all the "_main.cpp" files related to > the same method, so that all related files are shown together inside the > documentation (for example, we can group > "linear_regression_train_main.cpp", "linear_regression_predict_main.cpp" > and call that group as "linear_regression"). This grouping might also be > helpful elsewhere. What do you think about this? > > 2) This is a big refactoring, as it would also involve changing the tests > (and adding more tests) in "tests/main_tests" along with changing all > "mlpack/methods" available. So, it might not be possible to complete all > the things in the limited GSoC period. One solution that I thought was to > implement all the required functions and create the framework during GSoC > and change some (depending on the time left) bindings. I can then change > the rest of the bindings post-gsoc. Do you think that this can be possible? > > Regards, > Nippun Sharma > > >
_______________________________________________ mlpack mailing list [email protected] http://knife.lugatgt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlpack
