User Story
pysyft.py is currently hard to navigate. We should order it!
Discussion Points
Obvious route is alphabetic, ignoring __ and __i.
Inline functions after returning functions and __ixxx__ after __xxx__
We could also put the __xxx__ ops first. And make another exception for __init__.
Thoughts?
Floev
All 5 comments
Also, have we decided whether we want to expose the operators as functions as well?
E.g. def __add__ as well as def add
Floev
on 13 Dec 2017
@Floev Good points!
Your navigation strategy sounds good to me. I'd categorize functions according to their job first (e.g. no_params_func is a different type of job than _add_ or _mul_), and then reorganize lexicographically as you mention. What do you think?
Also, regarding the exposure of those methods, I think we should do it, so that we are still consistent with PyTorch:
diegoalejogm
on 14 Dec 2017
@floev I'd like this too. In my PR https://github.com/OpenMined/PySyft/pull/701 (closed now), I ordered lexicographical inside semantic sections. Does this make sense?
bosr
on 15 Dec 2017
Edited
bosr
on 15 Dec 2017
How do we feel about the current layout? The file was broken into pieces and seems certainly more organized before.
iamtrask
on 16 Dec 2017
Related issues
alberduris
路
3Comments
swaroopch
路
4Comments
robert-wagner
路
4Comments
jvmncs
路
3Comments
akirahirohito
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
@Floev Good points!
Your navigation strategy sounds good to me. I'd categorize functions according to their job first (e.g.
no_params_funcis a different type of job than_add_or_mul_), and then reorganize lexicographically as you mention. What do you think?Also, regarding the exposure of those methods, I think we should do it, so that we are still consistent with PyTorch:
