The latter is simpler and less-typing, I think.
How about adding this as an example in these style guides?
// maropu
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com>
wrote:
> I don't believe the Scala compiler understands the difference between your
> two examples the same way that you do. Looking at a few similar cases,
> I've only found the bytecode produced to be the same regardless of which
> style is used.
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recently noticed that actually there are some usages of functional
>> transformations (eg. map, foreach and etc.) with extra anonymous closure.
>>
>> For example,
>>
>> ...map(item => {
>> ...
>> })
>>
>> which can be just simply as below:
>>
>> ...map { item =>
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> I wrote a regex to find all of them and corrected them for a PR (I did
>> not submit yet).
>>
>> However, I feel a bit hesitating because only reasons I can think for
>> this are,
>>
>> firstly, Spark coding guides in both
>> https://github.com/databricks/scala-style-guide and
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Spark+Code+Style+Guide
>> are not using the examples as above
>>
>> secondly, I feel like extra anonymous closure can harm performance
>> but I am too sure,
>>
>> which I think are not persuasive enough.
>>
>>
>>
>> To cut it short, my questions are,
>>
>> 1. Would this be a proper change for a PR?
>>
>> 2. Would there be more explicit reasons to remove extra closure not only
>> for coding style?
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
--
---
Takeshi Yamamuro
