-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 405
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
fix and finish expression handling #1569
Comments
1 + 2. See my answer in the PR. This behavior was never specified nor is it "falsely advertised". Even though it makes sense I don't see any "faulty behavior" just a requested feature that was missing. We can now discuss if |
Can we agree it is counter intuitive and not what we want? Can you give an example where what I posted in my example is intended behavior? And I am pretty sure how you now specify learner defaults is really wrong |
Just assume this. A learner has arg x. The package docs say: x is by default n/2. What do you write in the mlr learner default expression? |
And i don't see the use of all of these symbols you suggest? I mean n should refer exactly to what the learner sees? For the learner there is no task? |
Just assume this. A learner has arg x. The package docs say: x is by default n/2. What do you write in the mlr learner default expression? |
New PR here: #1576 |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
expr handling was merged, but is wrong.
PR was here:
#1126
revert was done here:
981bc9b
the dif shows the code that would need to be reimplemented, and then fixed of course.
analysis:
that such a basic thing as in 1) was not unit tested in the orig PR seems to be a problem in itself.
this is due to the .subset arg in trainLearner. i remember it had a reason that we do the subsetting there, but this seems quite error prone, we also had problems in other places. maybe we remove this? this must be discussed in another issue and should not be tight-coupled (hopefully?) with resolving our problem here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: