Closed josiahkhor closed 6 years ago
When I coded it (and unfortunately didn't yet document it), I was expecting the user to supply a dictionary containing full tensor names mapped to alias names ... at least based on that description.
So something like:
{ Const_1: 'c', 'namescope:Const_2': 'c2' }
That sort of thing.
Does the alternate description sound better? A list of aliases along with what op they refer to? Entirely possible that is more intuitive/natural API. Please share thoughts.
In which case the parameter name would change to aliases
and indeed we'd switch the code accordingly.
Edit: as I think about it, yes, aliases -> op names sounds better. As added bonus, aliases will generally be valid identifiers, so the map can be specified without keys in quotes.
Addressed in e48c34805f196ecbd72a8e61462225209d16f0fe Also, changes published in 0.6.5 package on npm and added an accompanying sample (see graph/matrix sample).
It seems that the alias and name definitions are the wrong way around in loadOperations()? I think it should be
for (let alias in nameAliasMap) { let name = nameAliasMap[alias];