Re: [QUESTION] mxnet/Tuple vs nnvm/Tuple

[Lin Yuan]

Jun,

Thanks! I was also leaning towards your suggestion.
I have updated nnvm::Tuple to mxnet::Tuple for a few remaining places in
MXNet.

Best,

Lin

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:35 AM Jun Wu  wrote:

> include/mxnet/tuple.h was first copied from nnvm in this PR
>  so that we can make
> changes on it to support zero-dim and zero-size tensors without affecting
> TVM project. That PR has changed most of the places where nnvm::Tuple and
> nnvm::TShape were used to mxnet::Tuple and mxnet::TShape. If we still see a
> few locations not changed in the current codebase, we should change them to
> use mxnet Tuple as well for better cosmetics. The nnvm/tuple.h can be
> deprecated in MXNet.
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:44 PM Lin Yuan  wrote:
>
> > Dear Community,
> >
> > Currently in MXNet there are two Tuple template class defined in
> > mxnet/tuple.h and nnvm/tuple.h respectively. These two templates are
> higly
> > similar and most part are duplicated except for a couple of functions.
> > However, they were used mixedly in current codebase and causing conflict
> > sometimes.
> >
> > Is there any historical reason that we keep two copies of the same
> template
> > class? If not, can we refactor the code to consolidate into one?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Lin
> >
>

[QUESTION] mxnet/Tuple vs nnvm/Tuple

[Lin Yuan]

Dear Community,

Currently in MXNet there are two Tuple template class defined in
mxnet/tuple.h and nnvm/tuple.h respectively. These two templates are higly
similar and most part are duplicated except for a couple of functions.
However, they were used mixedly in current codebase and causing conflict
sometimes.

Is there any historical reason that we keep two copies of the same template
class? If not, can we refactor the code to consolidate into one?

Thanks!

Lin