BTW #1 _is_ used for operators in Mahout but seldom for named functions from what I’ve seen
On Jan 24, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Pat Ferrel <[email protected]> wrote: The comments are formatted using IDE defaults, I agree they can be cleaned up. The Scala docs here: http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/method-invocation.html are the usual source of guidance. There have been a couple exceptions to these guidelines including: 1) We (in much of the mahout scala code I’ve seen) don’t seem to follow the "no dot” infix style recommended in the guide http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/method-invocation.html There was a discussion of this some time ago and seemed be consensus for a more java-like form. As to removing org.apache.mahout.common.Pair this seems like a good idea in light of the recent refactoring. I took it from a quick back of the envelope function that Sebastian wrote over a year ago when it was a non-issue. I’ll look at that the next time I’m in the code. I assume this would remove the need for Pair being in the module replacing mr-leagacy for Scala? On Jan 24, 2015, at 5:10 AM, Gokhan Capan <[email protected]> wrote: +1 for favoring native scala types. I think in terms of Scala code, we need a clear style standards definition to adhere to. Gokhan On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> wrote: > in TextDelimitedReaderWriter.scala: > > =========================== > val itemList: > collection.mutable.MutableList[org.apache.mahout.common.Pair[Integer, > Double]] = new > collection.mutable.MutableList[org.apache.mahout.common.Pair[Integer, > Double]] > for (ve <- itemVector.nonZeroes) { > val item: org.apache.mahout.common.Pair[Integer, Double] = new > org.apache.mahout.common.Pair[Integer, Double](ve.index, ve.get) > itemList += item > } > ================================ > > (1) why scala code attempts to use commons.pair? What was wrong about > native Tuple type of scala? (I am trying to clean out mrlegacy dependencies > from spark module). > > (2) why it is so horribly styled (even for me)? comments are misaligned, > the lines routinely exceed 120 characters? > > Can these problems please be addressed? in particular, stuff like > o.a.m.common.Pair? And why it is even signed off on in the first place by > committers despite of clear style violations? > > thank you. >
