[R-package] C-API fix; attribute accessors #1166
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I think support for attributes is useful for general extensions, and we can use attributes to store some meta data for the upper level. This should not be a lot of code |
Merged
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In this PR:
SEXP, which should close [R-package] crash with direct .Call #1086@tqchen: would it make sense to have a
Learner::GetAttrNames()method in the API to facilitate working with stored model attributes? I have it, but I hesitated to include it into this PR. What about the api for removal of an attribute, e.g., by passing a nullptr as a value? I would also be curious to know about your views on the future use of attributes. E.g., would you prefer it to be minimal, or do you think it would be a reasonable mechanism to keep some model meta-data on provenance and state?