-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add chain rules for function calls without dims #83
Closed
+102
−67
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not happy about this PR because it means the signature of the AD rules is different from the signatures of
fft
etc. - we do not supportdims = nothing
in any of these methods.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A default positional argument simply expands to separate dispatches on the signatures
fft(x, dims)
andfft(x)
. Thedims=nothing
is just a way of sharing logic in these casesThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So I would not say the signatures are different?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My point is: You can call
frule(.., fft, x, nothing)
but you cannot callfft(x, nothing)
. This breaks the correspondence between the primal function and the rules, and makes the signatures inconsistent.There is no clean way to share code as long as
fft(x)
andfft(x, dims)
are completely separate. Introducingfft(x) = fft(x, 1:ndims(x))
orfft(x) = fft(x, nothing)
, and demanding that downstream packages implementfft(x, dims)
only would solve these issues. Otherwise you have to copy the code or use something like@eval
to do it for you.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a fair point, I didn't realize the
nothing
case. Sharing code would be easy enough with a shared helper function, e.g. replacing my current function with something like_fft_rrule
and calling it in both cases, so that all the dispatches are correct. If you're opposed to that, I can look into how to modifysrc/definitions.jl
to support your solution.