gh-3243: support pickle & deepcopy #3245
Draft
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
helpmefindaname
force-pushed
the
gh-3243/add_pickle_support
branch
from
e870abc
to
a053fcc
Compare
helpmefindaname
force-pushed
the
gh-3243/add_pickle_support
branch
from
a053fcc
to
d64195e
Compare
helpmefindaname
force-pushed
the
gh-3243/add_pickle_support
branch
from
d64195e
to
22cd5c3
Compare
|
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes gh-3243
A suggestion how we could support pickle and deepcopy without having to create multiple spans etc.
The idea is to use
__getitem__to create spans and relations by indexing:sentence[0:5]to create a span,sentence[span_a, span_b]to create a relation.Downside would be, that those who still instantiate
SpanorRelationmanually, would receive unexpected results.@dobbersc @alanakbik what do you think?