Closed melsigl closed 1 year ago
@dominik-probst: Feel free to include any updates that you have from your side to this PR, or - alternatively - create a separate PR.
@dominik-probst: Feel free to include any updates that you have from your side to this PR, or - alternatively - create a separate PR.
Since I still need a few days for my adjustments (and will also spread them over several weeks until the semester starts) it is probably better to start a separate PR for my adjustments.
Since my planned SS23 changes have been finished since yesterday, I have taken the liberty of attaching them to this PR.
These changes are primarily:
In the course of today I have also added the following changes to this PR:
Since I already reviewed your changes (including yesterday's schedule change) and found them to be good, I would now ask you to review my changes @melsigl .
Since I made the introduction of the table of contents and the task numbering in your two exercises without consultation with you, I have also indicated the commit here in each case, so that you can easily undo these changes, should they not have been in your interest.
Thank you, @dominik-probst, for your effort to update our lecture slides and our exercises.
Your changes sound valid to me even though I had not the luxury to invest the time it deserves to read every change in all its detail. However, I have some (minor) notes:
Exercises:
3.2-A-Closer-Look-at-A-Priori-and-FP-Growth.ipynb
. More specifically, print_tree
of class FPTree
, print_subtree
of class RootNode
, print_subtree
of class ItemNode
, print_table
of class HeaderTable
, and print_element
of class HeaderTableElement
. I understand why these exist. You may also want to consider implementing the special method __str__
which purpose is to return a human-readable and thus, an informal representation of an object. Contrary to __str__
, Python also provides __repr__
, which aims to provide a string representation of an object as well, albeit with the purpose of recreating said object by employing the built-in repr()
function. It seems to me that you aim for a human-readable string representation and thus __str__
may be more suitable. Lectures:
I also had to add a fix to the classification exercise involving Naive Bayes.
All in all, consider my consent to approve & merge as I cannot change the reviewer to myself and merge without bypassing our branch protection.
Thank you @melsigl for the review.
I have just implemented your advice on the __str__
functions.
The suggestion regarding the footnotes will be implemented somewhere in the future (Issue #69).
After the checks have been run, I will merge this PR.
Changes so far include, but may not limit to:
See also potential comments under this PR.