kou commented on code in PR #48491:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/48491#discussion_r2638282334
##########
c_glib/arrow-glib/compute.cpp:
##########
@@ -7498,6 +7502,151 @@ garrow_list_flatten_options_new(void)
return GARROW_LIST_FLATTEN_OPTIONS(options);
}
+enum {
+ PROP_MAKE_STRUCT_OPTIONS_FIELD_NAMES = 1,
Review Comment:
Should we keep this? I think that we should not provided this because mixing
`field_names` and `add_field()` isn't expected. For example, `add_field();
field_names = [...]` removes information provided by the first `add_field()`.
##########
c_glib/arrow-glib/compute.cpp:
##########
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include <arrow-glib/schema.hpp>
#include <arrow-glib/table.hpp>
#include <arrow-glib/type.hpp>
+#include <arrow-glib/internal-hash-table.hpp>
Review Comment:
Could you keep this list in alphabetical order?
##########
c_glib/arrow-glib/compute.cpp:
##########
@@ -8370,3 +8524,21 @@
garrow_list_flatten_options_get_raw(GArrowListFlattenOptions *options)
return static_cast<arrow::compute::ListFlattenOptions *>(
garrow_function_options_get_raw(GARROW_FUNCTION_OPTIONS(options)));
}
+
+GArrowMakeStructOptions *
+garrow_make_struct_options_new_raw(const arrow::compute::MakeStructOptions
*arrow_options)
+{
+ auto options =
+ GARROW_MAKE_STRUCT_OPTIONS(g_object_new(GARROW_TYPE_MAKE_STRUCT_OPTIONS,
NULL));
Review Comment:
```suggestion
GARROW_MAKE_STRUCT_OPTIONS(g_object_new(GARROW_TYPE_MAKE_STRUCT_OPTIONS,
nullptr));
```
--
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]
