JuliaDiff / JuliaDiff/ChainRulesCore.jl
"Writing good rules" docs should comment on type constraints
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Julia
- Stars
- 267
- Forks
- 66
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
the frule/rrule method signatures should have the same type constraints as the primal function (https://github.com/JuliaDiff/ChainRules.jl/pull/175#discussion_r416777041)
For example if your pacakge defines two methods for foo:
foo(::Number) = ...
foo(::AbstractMatrix) = ...
prefer defining
frule((_, ẋ), ::typeof(foo), x::Union{Number, AbstractMatrix}) = ...
rrule(::typeof(foo), x::Union{Number, AbstractMatrix}) = ...
to defining
frule((_, ẋ), ::typeof(foo), x) = ...
rrule(::typeof(foo), x) = ...
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the “Writing good rules” documentation section and review its guidance and examples for frule and rrule signatures. Update it to explain matching the primal function’s type constraints, using the issue’s foo example; done means the guidance and example clearly show constrained rule methods.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- julia
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 1/5
- Estimated time
- Under an hour
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 55/100