westonpace commented on issue #35052: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/35052#issuecomment-1512495303
> I don't understand the main principe by which a type is assigned to a primitive. Seen from the user's point of view, the primitive types are the opposite nested. If this is due to the peculiarities of the language, then which ones? "Not nested" is one definition of primitive (and it matches the one I have in my head) but it seems like not all implementations have chosen this definition. For example, if I interpret @tustvold 's comment correctly I believe it says that Rust has chosen "primitive" to mean "maps directly to a rust primitive array". Since "primitive" is not defined by the spec it is probably valid (as @alamb mentions) for each implementation to have a different definition. > Tensor problem. As written above, tensor types are also different. In my opinion, a tensor should accept all primitive types. The rust tensor implementation is older and predates recent discussion on a formalized definition for tensors added in https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/33925 Given the definition in #33925 I don't see any use of the word "primitive" or, in fact, any limitation to the possible types. So I think it would be legal (if not altogether sensible) to have tensors of nested types. For example, a tensor of strings should be legal. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
