[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2359?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14628131#comment-14628131
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-2359:
---------------------------------------
Github user ggevay commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/911#issuecomment-121633275
@fhueske:
I included the reformatting changes because the generator is making them.
This is happening because some modifications were made directly to some
generated codes in the past, which made them inconsistent with the generator.
But I guess the goal should be that the generator program would have no effect
on the master. One way to achieve this is to commit the changes the generator
makes, and the other way would be to change the generator to follow the
reformatting. Do you think that I should change the PR to the latter with
respect to the reformattings as well? (I already did the latter with respect to
some real changes, see my opening comment.)
> Add factory methods to the Java TupleX types
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-2359
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2359
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java API
> Affects Versions: 0.10
> Reporter: Gabor Gevay
> Assignee: Gabor Gevay
> Priority: Minor
>
> The compiler doesn't infer generic type arguments from constructor arguments,
> which means that we have to call Tuple constructors like this:
> Tuple2<Integer, String> = new Tuple2<Integer, String>(5, "foo");
> I propose adding a factory method, which would provide the following
> alternative:
> Tuple2<Integer, String> = Tuple2.create(5, "foo");
> (Note that C++ and C# Tuples also have similar factory methods for the same
> reason.)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
