Stuck on an issue?
Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Inconsistent quantiser names
See original GitHub issueThis is very minor and I’m very happy for this to be a wontfix.
At the moment two out of eight quantizers have a “Quantizer” suffix:
It seems to me it should be all of them with the suffix or none of them with the suffix. We could potentially standardise on one version but have an alias to the other version.Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:6 (6 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Inconsistent behavior during cell selection in DT datatable
I have the shiny app below in which the user clicks on a cell in the upper table and the relative cell should...
Read more >Canonical quantization - Wikipedia
In physics, canonical quantization is a procedure for quantizing a classical theory, while attempting to preserve the formal structure, such as symmetries, ...
Read more >DNS resolution works inconsistently in VPN connection
The only solution I know of is to not include DNS servers on the list, unless you want it to use them. In...
Read more >NVIDIA Deep Learning TensorRT Documentation
This toolkit is used to quantize different layers in the graph exclusively based on operator names, class, and pattern matching.
Read more >File:Quantization error.png - Wikimedia Commons
... the exact noise that results from this simple quantization scheme depends somewhat on the input signal. It may be inconsistent, ...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
I agree, I’m in favour of standardising as well 👍 I think dropping the suffix makes the most sense since the quantizers will likely be used as
lq.quantizers.*.I have a slight preference to dropping the suffixes for the two that have them, but no strong opinion. Also in favor of standardizing.