>From other thread: @tqchen: > I will summarize some of my take here. I like the idea of Node hierarchy > compile time generation. This is something I have thought about and discussed > with @jroesch for a while and might help [#2523 > (comment)](https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/issues/2523#issuecomment-458821056) > > It is always tempting to automate more parts of wrapper generation. However, > our past experiences suggest that the automatic wrapper generation is never > perfect. Think about how can we support keyword arguments, good pythonic > style docstring and so on. It is also harder for developers to find the > actual implementation of the "generated API" since some of that is generated > at runtime. Eventually, we find that it is simpler to just do a manual > wrapping, which gives us all the good native features, docs, and keep > PackedFunc simple (by only support positional arguments without any > meta-data).
@nhynes: > This idea actually comes a lot :P [#2328 > (comment)](https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/pull/2328#issuecomment-450001679) > > I know, for sure, that we could get good docs with _really good_ codegen like > that offered by Rust macros, but I also know for sure that we're not about to > rewrite TVM in Rust :) > > I think that the boilerplate really does bother new (advanced) users who want > to use TVM as a tool. I wonder if there's a way forward here that satisfies > all desiderata? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/issues/2983#issuecomment-480655648
