You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We currently use chirho.interventional.handlers.do and chirho.observational.handlers.condition in most user-facing code and documentation because they are drop-in replacements for pyro.do and pyro.condition respectively.
However, using do and condition in library code leads to some internal inconsistencies in API design and semantics that will be annoying to work around in the future. This issue tracks work on switching to using more idiomatic and consistently specified query handlers internally.
We currently use
chirho.interventional.handlers.do
andchirho.observational.handlers.condition
in most user-facing code and documentation because they are drop-in replacements forpyro.do
andpyro.condition
respectively.However, using
do
andcondition
in library code leads to some internal inconsistencies in API design and semantics that will be annoying to work around in the future. This issue tracks work on switching to using more idiomatic and consistently specified query handlers internally.Tasks:
ConditionMessenger
toObservations
Rename DoMessenger and ConditionMessenger query handlers #389InterveneMessenger
toInterventions
Rename DoMessenger and ConditionMessenger query handlers #389Splits
handler tochirho.counterfactual.handlers
that insertssplit
operations directly Add Splits handler #390do
withInterventions
(orSplits
whereSplits
is correct and more precise)condition
withObservations
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: