The main use case I had in mind was making Distribution a base class.
Methods like:
float64_t CHMM::best_path(int32_t dimension);
SGVector<float64_t> CGMM::cluster(SGVector<float64_t> point);
can be translated easily, and still fall within the meaning of what a "get"
method does.
But on a second thought, I think I might have been a little rash/lazy ":D
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 1:33 PM Heiko Strathmann <heiko.strathm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> gmm.get_real_vector("cluster", point)
>
> Things like these should be done via a base interface, here simply :apply
>
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 13:31, Heiko Strathmann <heiko.strathm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We could template the arguments. But I am unsure this really is a good
>> idea with the functions. Where would be the use case where the getter
>> doesn’t work?
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 20:26, Ahmed Essam <theartful...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Do you think it's worth considering extending the behaviour of get(name,
>>> index) to try to run a function that accepts an integer parameter.
>>> So for example we can run hmm.get("best_path", i) to call best_path with
>>> i as a parameter.
>>>
>>> I believe we can also extend this to accept any number of parameters of
>>> the same type by having something like get(std::string name, std::vector<T>
>>> params). So in python we might do something like
>>> get_sometype("some_lazy_parameter", [1, 2, 3, 4]). This can be done using
>>> C++ function binding magic. So in GMM for example we might do
>>> gmm.get_real_vector("cluster", point). And this can be made as fancy as we
>>> like (to specify parameter names and having default values for example).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ahmed Essam.
>>>
>> --
>> Sent from my phone
>>
> --
> Sent from my phone
>
