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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 part: lstm block #66
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add part: lstm block #66
Changes from 2 commits
d9aadb5
7c8b691
624f6c1
6bf9e2e
4b6e4ef
c4fa60e
9da3a3c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
should we allow this? I feel like if we have bidirectional here, the BLSTM part becomes redundant, which is maybe okay, but might also cause two different branches that do the same, which I am not sure we want (if there are potential extensions later). We could maybe also just deprecate the BLSTM block?
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.
Good point I ll just remove the flag. Is maybe a bit more readable having two classes?!
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.
Same Q as in the other PR: why is this necessary now, and hasn't been for the other assemblies?
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.
Why only when not scripting? Don't you want that
seq_len
is always on CPU?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 followed the example in the blstm part.
I did not copy the comment over... I did not yet get to look why this is necessary
@JackTemaki you implemented the BLSTM IIRC. You remember why this was done in this way?
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.
The question is, is this still relevant? This was something I added at some point, but if this is not needed for ONNX export this should be removed until there is actually a reason for it.
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.
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.
Just out of curiosity: why does black force the new lines here but not for the blstm? Shouldnt it be the same line length?
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.
well this is dependent if you manually set the last commata. if set it will force new lines