Default names for transformers ; make all parameters keyword-only about pumpp HOT 6 CLOSED

Can you describe situations in which you wouldn't want a name for each feature extractor?

The point here is to provide a way of (hierarchically) grouping features together where there could otherwise be namespace conflicts. For instance, if you for some reason wanted to have a CQT and STFT together, they could both have mag and phase features, so the only thing keeping them separate is the name scope.

from pumpp.

right, but couldn't we infer the name from the feature extractor?

Like by default, we could name them cqt/mag and stft/mag. I feel like we shouldn't need to explicitly name them for simple cases like tthat. If you wanted two STFT then you could name them explicitly name='stft_1' and name='stft_2'

Or what would be fun would be the automatically incrementing the names like tensorflow does, but that's probably a bit extra.

from pumpp.

Oh i see -- are you then suggesting that we have default names for the feature extractors? I could be okay with that.

from pumpp.

Yep! Something like this:

from pumpp.feature import STFT, Mel, STFTPhaseDiff
import inflection

for cls in [STFT, Mel, STFTPhaseDiff]:
    print(inflection.underscore(cls.__name__), cls)

stft <class 'pumpp.feature.fft.STFT'>
mel <class 'pumpp.feature.mel.Mel'>
stft_phase_diff <class 'pumpp.feature.fft.STFTPhaseDiff'>

from pumpp.

Well, I don't think we need to get fancy with this: explicit strings are better IMO. And we're only talking about a handful of classes anyway, so may as well hard-wire it in for the sake of readability.

The only hiccup is around default args and positionals: we can do this if we make all arguments keyword-only, which I generally like stylistically.

from pumpp.

Sure, that's fine by me. I was more just demonstrating the pattern.

And yeah I agree about kw-only. I think in cases like this it totally makes sense (what should the first argument to Mel be anyways?).

from pumpp.