Closed NeuralCoder3 closed 1 year ago
On a more stylistic note, I think we should remove the space just in front of the @
when dumping filters. Say, we have a curried function:
.con foo(a: T)@(.tt)(b: U) = /*...*/
With the current logic, it would look like this:
.con foo(a: T) @(.tt)(b: U) = /*...*/
And now it looks as if the filter belongs to the second curried function.
On a more stylistic note, I think we should remove the space just in front of the
@
when dumping filters. Say, we have a curried function:.con foo(a: T)@(.tt)(b: U) = /*...*/
With the current logic, it would look like this:
.con foo(a: T) @(.tt)(b: U) = /*...*/
And now it looks as if the filter belongs to the second curried function.
Do curried functions still exist at the dumping stage? I would expect them to be syntactic sugar that is resolved at parsing.
On a more stylistic note, I think we should remove the space just in front of the
@
when dumping filters. Say, we have a curried function:.con foo(a: T)@(.tt)(b: U) = /*...*/
With the current logic, it would look like this:
.con foo(a: T) @(.tt)(b: U) = /*...*/
And now it looks as if the filter belongs to the second curried function.
Do curried functions still exist at the dumping stage? I would expect them to be syntactic sugar that is resolved at parsing.
correct. But I still find it better for the sake of consistency to remove the space.
This branch contains fixes for higher-order code generation. The fixes regard the llvm backend, memory dialect, and closure conversion dialect.
This branch is the base of the current state of automatic differentiation and the matrix dialect.
Summary
Miscellaneous:
Core
Dialects
Tests