-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 201
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add split function #1237
Merged
Merged
add split function #1237
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7b52a79
add split function
tiagodavi 03bd054
improve implementation
tiagodavi d9cd579
fix doc
tiagodavi 3404a25
improve impl
tiagodavi 24b77b4
improve again
tiagodavi 0264f4d
add both integer and float implementations
tiagodavi ed08a56
refactor: use nx operations and collapse clauses
polvalente 30789ae
improve docs
polvalente d472c06
Update nx.ex
josevalim File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -21,3 +21,6 @@ erl_crash.dump | |
|
||
# Ignore package tarball (built via "mix hex.build"). | ||
nx-*.tar | ||
|
||
# ASDF files | ||
.tool-versions |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tiagodavi @josevalim I've pushed a refactor to collapse both clauses into the same one, mostly to highlight that the slicing is the same, with the only change being how we calculate it.
I've also changed the examples to operate on a written-out iota instead of arbitrary values because it makes it easier to compare results.
We still need to discuss if we want to accept a negative integer split.
It's easy to do it by setting right after
axis_size =
:split = if is_integer(split) and split < 0, do: axis_size + split, else: split
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Though I think that negative split might be confusing in the sense that we don't know if the results will be reversed or swapped in the result tuple (either or both)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@polvalente we will base it on
Enum.split
(which means looking up from the end).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But I am fine with postponing this for now. :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, so given this, my suggestion suffices:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wdyt?