Closed danieldk closed 2 years ago
I will make a proof of concept of (2) without the floret support to get a feeling for how well that works. I will probably also use structopt
, I think it might simplify things.
Phew, I feel like the nesting on (2) could become a bit unwieldy. On the other hand (1) is even worse from a UX perspective since the available information through --help
is much much noisier.
So out of these two, I'd probably prefer (2). I'm not too keen on either solution, but I can't come up with anything other than perhaps moving back to separate binaries - which would make discoverability even worse. So (2) is probably the best choice?
Phew, I feel like the nesting on (2) could become a bit unwieldy. On the other hand (1) is even worse from a UX perspective since the available information through
--help
is much much noisier.
I have somewhat working prototype. The syntax with multiple subcommands is somewhat interesting, e.g. you'd get something like:
finalfrontier --dims 200 corpus.txt embeddings.fifu deps --use-root explicit --minn 4
So, the structure is something like:
finalfrontier [common options]
It is not very unixy, but the really nice thing is that the help gets much less crowded. E.g.
finalfrontier --help
gives help for common options
finalfrontier deps --help
The options for dependency embeddings, etc. I guess the primary thing I really dislike is that the corpus and embedding filenames cannot be at the end. Well it can, but that really convolutes the data structures, whereas with this setup we can nicely generate all the options from clap 3's structopt
-like support.
Fixed by #174.
I have implemented support for training floret embeddings, but the command-line gets a bit unwieldy. Floret is quite a bit different than what we have so far:
I see two ways forward:
finalfrontier skipgram floret
,finalfrontier skipgram fasttext
,finalfrontier skipgram buckets
,finalfrontier skipgram explicit
and the same fordeps
.For (2), I am not sure if this is the best partitioning.