-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Make it easier to set activations #283
Comments
I think to keep things simple we either re-export the entire Flux namespace, or we re-export none of it. I think the latter and current choice gives the user more control, and it's not too burdensome to run In case it was not clear to you, after In docs we always try to put in the Even if we did re-export Flux's namespace, it won't help if the user never runs My vote would be for the status quo. Anyone else prefer we re-export the Flux namespace? |
To my understanding, one of MLJFlux's objectives is
This gives me the impression that for standard deep learning models, I can achieve my task more simply by using MLJFlux in lieu of (and not in conjunction with) Flux. In the status quo, I can use any standard network (i.e., any one among those supported by MLJFlux by default) and I will need to import For reference, in Keras, both syntaxes are supported. |
Motivation and description
It would be easier and I don't have to explictly import
Flux
and just specify:relu
because I coming toMLJFlux
because I am not interested in using or importingFlux
.Possible Implementation
Something like:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: