You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I reckon the Tensor name is redundant, and we can just define a "tensor" as e.g. F64 [2, 5] or U64 []. This would be a fairly big overhaul of the dtype API, but I suspect can be done without changing the implementation. We could even do sth like
F64 : Shape -> Type
F64 shape = Tensor shape F64'
It might get messy for functions polymorphic in the dtype, like (+)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I reckon the
Tensor
name is redundant, and we can just define a "tensor" as e.g.F64 [2, 5]
orU64 []
. This would be a fairly big overhaul of the dtype API, but I suspect can be done without changing the implementation. We could even do sth likeIt might get messy for functions polymorphic in the dtype, like
(+)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: