Predecessor patch #15
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
2023/02/03
the key "target" may not be in the predecessor
check if key in the predecessor or not before the "get" occurs
Decoupling get_predecessor and viterbi_search
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The coupling issue arises in the viterbi_search function due to its reliance on the get_predecessor function. One concern with this coupling is within the get_predecessor function, where a key is retrieved from a dictionary using the get operation. The key might not always exist in the dictionary, but I've implemented a check in get_predecessor to ensure the program won't crash if attempting to get a non-existent key. In such cases, get_predecessor will return an empty dictionary.
I've also added comments in the viterbi_search function to emphasize that get_predecessor should be used separately. Additionally, it's crucial to verify whether the returned predecessor is empty after calling get_predecessor.