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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Update docs for output_format #712

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 22, 2024
+2 −1
Merged

Update docs for output_format #712

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
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
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion docs/docs/snippets/prompt-syntax/output-format.mdx
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ Bachelors CS, 2015
UT Austin
---
Answer in JSON using this schema:
{
name: string
education: [
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -128,4 +129,4 @@ The tl;dr is that json schemas are
2. very unreadable by humans (and hence models)
3. perform worse than type definitions (especially on deeper nested objects or smaller models)

Read our [full article on json schema vs type definitions](https://www.boundaryml.com/blog/type-definition-prompting-baml)
Read our [full article on json schema vs type definitions](https://www.boundaryml.com/blog/type-definition-prompting-baml)
Loading