Sorry my fault for not reading carefully. Yes I guess they should.
except x_tfms is now a mismatch with this group. But it’s _tfms everywhere in the current code so it’s probably good.
Ugh. Hmm… I’m having trouble coming up with reasons why it shouldn’t be
I think it’s correct for it to be
_tfms, it’s like
_ds, etc. And in the current v1 code base it is
_tfms everywhere. Moreover if you do decide to flip it, then what do we do here?
DataBunch(train_tds, valid_ds, bs=bs, train_tfms=batch_transforms, valid_tfms=batch_transforms)
how do we deal with
train_ being prefixes.
I just meant that it locally will break the flow of something_x, followed by x_something.
Perhaps it shouldn’t be ‘x’ in
x_tfms, but something else and that will fix the issue, leaving
_tfms as is?
Well the good news is that I removed that parameter today, so nothing to worry about now