# \[RFC\] Rename Hybrid Script

**URL:** <https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915>\
**Category:** RFC\
**Created:** [September 15, 2020, 11:05pm UTC](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915 "2020-09-15T23:05:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tqchen](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/user_avatar/discuss.tvm.apache.org/tqchen/32/5_2.png) [@tqchen](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/u/tqchen)\
**Post date:** [September 17, 2020, 2:52pm UTC](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915/8 "2020-09-17T14:52:48Z")

</div>

One thing that is worth considering is how are we going to parse a module with mixed relay and tir functions (or those with external ones).

```auto
@tvm.script
class MixedModule:
     def relay_func(x: ty.Tensor):
         return relay.call_tir_dest_passing(tir_func, x)
   
     def tir_func(x: ty.handle)
          ...

```

Having such mixed module(and unified design) is a motivation for a common decorator. Although I agree we need to think about ways to distinguish the two.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-rename-hybrid-script/7915)._