To move forward, how about we go with option 2b for now.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915/14) to
respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://discuss.tvm.apac
Yes and no. Right now we do not need to differentiate. But in the future,
functions in a module may either use be for TIR or for relay.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915/13) to
respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list
No matter which option we take, do we have to discriminate between function and
class when annotating with decorator?
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915/12) to
respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubsc
I've put up an initial PR here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/pull/6522.
An issue has come up, what do we name the python module?
## Option 1
We name the module `tvm.tvmscript`.
Example usage:
```python
import tvm
# Can still use this though
@tvm.script # or tvm.script.tir
def my_fu
There are some tradeoffs, for example, given the type system is shared across
relay and tir. We might in the future have things like
```python
@tvm.script
class MixedModule:
MyStruct = ADT[Integer, Integer]
def relay_func(x: ty.Tensor):
return relay.call_tir_dest_passing(t
How about this for mixed TIR and Relay:
class MixedModule:
@relay.script
def relay_func(x: ty.Tensor):
return relay.call_tir_dest_passing(tir_func, x)
@tir.script
def tir_func(x: ty.handle)
...
---
[Visit Topic](https:/
One thing that is worth considering is how are we going to parse a module with
mixed relay and tir functions (or those with external ones).
```
@tvm.script
class MixedModule:
def relay_func(x: ty.Tensor):
return relay.call_tir_dest_passing(tir_func, x)
def tir_func(x: ty.
I don't think having a single decorator makes sense given that the two scripts
will require disambiguation with separate decorators. My recent syntactic
rewriting work on Relay shares very little concrete syntax with TIR. Either way
we will probably need `tvm.script.tir` and `tvm.script.relay`
`tvm.script` would be a great name
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915/6)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/unsubscribe
`tvm.script` looks good to me.
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915/5)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/unsubscribe/542
I like the idea of `tvm.script` as the intention is to have the script to be
able to represent both relay and tir module collectively.
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915/4)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mo
:heart_eyes: :star_struck: Thank you for proposing this! Completely agreed that
we should disambiguate.
Having `tvm.script` and `te.hybrid.script` is an improvement, but I still think
there is far more overlap than ideal between the two.
What about `pytir`? Then it opens the door to other emb
CC: @spectrometerHBH @Hzfengsy @were
---
[Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915/2)
to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, [click
here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/unsubscri
## Current issue
TVM current has two different hybrid scripts: `te.hybrid.script` and
`tvm.hybrid.script`. This leads to confusion as both scripts are similar but
share different use cases and properties. This is especially confusing for new
users as hybrid script can refer to either of these
14 matches
Mail list logo
