Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add entry about typeof gotcha #331

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
55 changes: 55 additions & 0 deletions docs/src/writing_good_rules.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,60 @@
# On writing good `rrule` / `frule` methods

## Use `Type{T}`, not `typeof(T)`, to define rules for constructors

To define an `frule` or `rrule` for a _function_ `foo` we dispatch on the type of `foo`, which is `typeof(foo)`.
For example, the `rrule` signature would be like:

```julia
function rrule(::typeof(foo), args...; kwargs...)
...
return y, foo_pullback
end
```

But to define an `rrule` for a constructor for a _type_ `T` we need to be careful to dispatch only on `Type{T}`.

For example, the `rrule` signature for a constructor would be like:

```julia
function rrule(::Type{T}, args...; kwargs...)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Might be good to mention when you want <:T here, because I've seen this version trip up users before as well.

...
return y, T_pullback
end
```

In particular, be careful not to use `typeof(T)` here.
Because `typeof(T)` is `DataType`, using this to define an `rrule`/`frule` will define an `rrule`/`frule` for all constructors.

You can check which to use with `Core.Typeof`:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think more useful than the below part on Typeof would be to create a struct that is also a functor and show how to define rrules for both its constructor and it as a functor. Writing functor rules also trips up users, and the two are easily confused.


```julia
julia> function foob end
foob (generic function with 0 methods)

julia> typeof(foob)
typeof(foob)

julia> Core.Typeof(foob)
typeof(foob)

julia> abstract type AbstractT end

julia> struct ExampleT <: AbstractT end

julia> typeof(AbstractT)
DataType

julia> typeof(ExampleT)
DataType

julia> Core.Typeof(AbstractT)
Type{AbstractT}

julia> Core.Typeof(ExampleT)
Type{ExampleT}
```

## Use `Zero()` or `One()` as return value

The `Zero()` and `One()` differential objects exist as an alternative to directly returning
Expand Down