Comment by calcsam

2 days ago

Thanks! The conditional `when` clauses live on the steps, rather than being represented in the workflow, and in fact when we built this for an example, the last step being called depended on the results of the previous two steps.

How would you simplify this?

5 comments

calcsam

Reply
anentropic  2 days ago

I think the problem is that a 'fluent' chain of calls already expresses a sequence, so the way that 'after' resets the context to start a new branch feels very awkward ... like a GOTO or something

It's telling that the example relies on arbitrary indentation (which a linter will get rid of) to have some hope of comprehending it

Possibly this was all motivated by a desire to avoid nested structures above all?

But for a branching graph a nested structure is more natural. It'd also probably be nicer if the methods were on the task nodes instead of on the workflow, then you could avoid the 'step'/'then' distinction and have something like:

e.g.

    testWorkflow(
        llm
        .then(decider)
        .then(
            agentOne.then(workflow),
            agentTwo.then(workflow),
        )
    )

  • calcsam  2 days ago

    You’re right that the syntax was inspired by the desire to avoid nested structures. But the syntax here is interesting as well and fairly readable. Worth thinking about!