Union format strings share enough properties that having them in the same switch case doesn't result in additional complexity...lists and list views are completely different types (for the purposes of parsing the format string). Is there any reason *not* to use +v and +V? The switch statements used to parse the format string are already rather unwieldy...it would be a nice quality-of-life improvement (although by no means a required one) to use a separate character.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:34 PM Felipe Oliveira Carvalho <felipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This mailing list thread is going to be the discussion. > > The union types also use two characters, so I didn’t think it would be a > problem. > > — > Felipe > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 15:26 Dewey Dunnington <de...@voltrondata.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > I'm sorry for missing earlier discussion on this or a PR into the > > format where this discussion may have occurred...is there a reason > > that +lv and +Lv were chosen over a single-character version (i.e., > > maybe +v and +V)? A single-character version is (slightly) easier to > > parse in C. > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:00 PM Felipe Oliveira Carvalho > > <felipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm writing to propose "+lv" and "+Lv" as format strings for list-view > > and > > > large list-view arrays passing through the Arrow C data interface [1]. > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > [ ] +1 - I'm in favor of this new C Data Format string > > > [ ] +0 > > > [ ] -1 - I'm against adding this new format string because.... > > > > > > Thanks everyone! > > > > > > -- > > > Felipe > > > > > > [1] https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/CDataInterface.html > >
