Closed torfjelde closed 1 month ago
Should demo(TypeWrap{Float64}())
be demo(TypeWrap{Vector{Float64}}())
?
Yep! Edited.
But we need to merge https://github.com/TuringLang/DynamicPPL.jl/pull/609 first
Is the old syntax no longer supported, or just inefficient due to type instability?
Is the old syntax no longer supported, or just inefficient due to type instability?
Old syntax is still supported for definition, but not for calling.
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 9125944285: | 0.0% |
Covered Lines: | 0 |
Relevant Lines: | 1528 |
Anyone wants to give this the go-ahead?
Waiting with the merge until I've gotten the other two PRs through, as they are not breaking (but need to fix tests)
This includes a few breaking changes + some fixes.
Of greatest importance is:
prob"..."
macro is gone.@model demo(::Type{T}=...)
are now converted intodemo(::TypeWrap{T}=...)
to improve type-stability and thus performance. But this means that one can no longer calldemo(Vector{Float64})
but instead need to dodemo(TypeWrap{Vector{Float64}}())
.Close https://github.com/TuringLang/Turing.jl/pull/2220