That's not a bad notion. It does successfully encapsulate, and conveniently enough my model file and my script are both valid Python code, so I guess that's the thing to do. Thank you for the suggestion.
- Zack On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:40:04 PM UTC-4, Freddie Chopin wrote: > > On 04.04.2015 20:21, Zachary McCord wrote: > > My question here is: is there an elegant way to express these > > dependencies? Am I just going about this backwards? > > Maybe you could generate some sort of "precompiled script" which would > consist of the real script from bin/ and the model? There would be one > "precompiled script" for each model or - if you implement that - model > could be selected via command line. This way this file would depend on > the model and the real scripts. It could be generated by Tupfile from > bin/ or from training/, and placed in workspace/. > > Regards, > FCh > -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
