Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Hyukjin Kwon wrote: > Then, are we going to submit a PR and fix this maybe? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-17656 Thanks Hyukjin! Unless someone beats me to it, I'm going to have a PR over the weekend. Jacek - To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
Then, are we going to submit a PR and fix this maybe? On 9 Sep 2016 9:30 p.m., "Sean Owen" wrote: > Oh I get it now. I was necessary in the past. Sure, seems like it > could be standardized now. > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Reynold Xin wrote: > > Yea but the earlier email was asking they were introduced in the first > > place. > > > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016, Marcelo Vanzin > wrote: > >> > >> Not after SPARK-14642, right? > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Reynold Xin > wrote: > >> > There is a package called scala. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Friday, September 9, 2016, Hyukjin Kwon > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I was also actually wondering why it is being written like this. > >> >> > >> >> I actually took a look for this before and wanted to fix them but I > >> >> found > >> >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12077/files#r58041468 > >> >> > >> >> So, I kind of persuaded myself that committers already know about it > >> >> and > >> >> there is a reason for this. > >> >> > >> >> I'd like to know the full details why we don't import but write full > >> >> path > >> >> though. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 9 Sep 2016 5:28 a.m., "Jakob Odersky" wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> +1 to Sean's answer, importing varargs. > >> >>> In this case the _root_ is also unnecessary (it would be required in > >> >>> case you were using it in a nested package called "scala" itself) > >> >>> > >> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Sean Owen > wrote: > >> >>> > I think the @_root_ version is redundant because > >> >>> > @scala.annotation.varargs is redundant. Actually wouldn't we just > >> >>> > import varargs and write @varargs? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski > >> >>> > wrote: > >> >>> >> Hi, > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs > >> >>> >> annotation. > >> >>> >> There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like > >> >>> >> DataFrameReader > >> >>> >> or functions as well as examples of > >> >>> >> @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs, > >> >>> >> e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs > only. > >> >>> >> WDYT? > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Pozdrawiam, > >> >>> >> Jacek Laskowski > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ > >> >>> >> Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark > >> >>> >> Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > - > >> >>> >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > - > >> >>> > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> > - > >> >>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Marcelo >
Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
Oh I get it now. I was necessary in the past. Sure, seems like it could be standardized now. On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Reynold Xin wrote: > Yea but the earlier email was asking they were introduced in the first > place. > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016, Marcelo Vanzin wrote: >> >> Not after SPARK-14642, right? >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Reynold Xin wrote: >> > There is a package called scala. >> > >> > >> > On Friday, September 9, 2016, Hyukjin Kwon wrote: >> >> >> >> I was also actually wondering why it is being written like this. >> >> >> >> I actually took a look for this before and wanted to fix them but I >> >> found >> >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12077/files#r58041468 >> >> >> >> So, I kind of persuaded myself that committers already know about it >> >> and >> >> there is a reason for this. >> >> >> >> I'd like to know the full details why we don't import but write full >> >> path >> >> though. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2016 5:28 a.m., "Jakob Odersky" wrote: >> >>> >> >>> +1 to Sean's answer, importing varargs. >> >>> In this case the _root_ is also unnecessary (it would be required in >> >>> case you were using it in a nested package called "scala" itself) >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Sean Owen wrote: >> >>> > I think the @_root_ version is redundant because >> >>> > @scala.annotation.varargs is redundant. Actually wouldn't we just >> >>> > import varargs and write @varargs? >> >>> > >> >>> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> Hi, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs >> >>> >> annotation. >> >>> >> There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like >> >>> >> DataFrameReader >> >>> >> or functions as well as examples of >> >>> >> @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs, >> >>> >> e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs only. >> >>> >> WDYT? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Pozdrawiam, >> >>> >> Jacek Laskowski >> >>> >> >> >>> >> https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ >> >>> >> Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark >> >>> >> Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> - >> >>> >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > - >> >>> > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> - >> >>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Marcelo - To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
Yea but the earlier email was asking they were introduced in the first place. On Friday, September 9, 2016, Marcelo Vanzin wrote: > Not after SPARK-14642, right? > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Reynold Xin > wrote: > > There is a package called scala. > > > > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016, Hyukjin Kwon > wrote: > >> > >> I was also actually wondering why it is being written like this. > >> > >> I actually took a look for this before and wanted to fix them but I > found > >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12077/files#r58041468 > >> > >> So, I kind of persuaded myself that committers already know about it and > >> there is a reason for this. > >> > >> I'd like to know the full details why we don't import but write full > path > >> though. > >> > >> > >> On 9 Sep 2016 5:28 a.m., "Jakob Odersky" > wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 to Sean's answer, importing varargs. > >>> In this case the _root_ is also unnecessary (it would be required in > >>> case you were using it in a nested package called "scala" itself) > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Sean Owen > wrote: > >>> > I think the @_root_ version is redundant because > >>> > @scala.annotation.varargs is redundant. Actually wouldn't we just > >>> > import varargs and write @varargs? > >>> > > >>> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski > > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> Hi, > >>> >> > >>> >> The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs > annotation. > >>> >> There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like > DataFrameReader > >>> >> or functions as well as examples of @_root_.scala.annotation. > varargs, > >>> >> e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. > >>> >> > >>> >> I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs only. > >>> >> WDYT? > >>> >> > >>> >> Pozdrawiam, > >>> >> Jacek Laskowski > >>> >> > >>> >> https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ > >>> >> Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark > >>> >> Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski > >>> >> > >>> >> > - > >>> >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > - > >>> > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > >>> > > >>> > >>> - > >>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >>> > > > > > > -- > Marcelo >
Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
Not after SPARK-14642, right? On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Reynold Xin wrote: > There is a package called scala. > > > On Friday, September 9, 2016, Hyukjin Kwon wrote: >> >> I was also actually wondering why it is being written like this. >> >> I actually took a look for this before and wanted to fix them but I found >> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12077/files#r58041468 >> >> So, I kind of persuaded myself that committers already know about it and >> there is a reason for this. >> >> I'd like to know the full details why we don't import but write full path >> though. >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2016 5:28 a.m., "Jakob Odersky" wrote: >>> >>> +1 to Sean's answer, importing varargs. >>> In this case the _root_ is also unnecessary (it would be required in >>> case you were using it in a nested package called "scala" itself) >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Sean Owen wrote: >>> > I think the @_root_ version is redundant because >>> > @scala.annotation.varargs is redundant. Actually wouldn't we just >>> > import varargs and write @varargs? >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski >>> > wrote: >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs annotation. >>> >> There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like DataFrameReader >>> >> or functions as well as examples of @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs, >>> >> e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. >>> >> >>> >> I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs only. >>> >> WDYT? >>> >> >>> >> Pozdrawiam, >>> >> Jacek Laskowski >>> >> >>> >> https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ >>> >> Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark >>> >> Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski >>> >> >>> >> - >>> >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >>> >> >>> > >>> > - >>> > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >>> > >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >>> > -- Marcelo - To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
There is a package called scala. On Friday, September 9, 2016, Hyukjin Kwon wrote: > I was also actually wondering why it is being written like this. > > I actually took a look for this before and wanted to fix them but I found > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12077/files#r58041468 > > So, I kind of persuaded myself that committers already know about it and > there is a reason for this. > > I'd like to know the full details why we don't import but write full path > though. > > On 9 Sep 2016 5:28 a.m., "Jakob Odersky" > wrote: > >> +1 to Sean's answer, importing varargs. >> In this case the _root_ is also unnecessary (it would be required in >> case you were using it in a nested package called "scala" itself) >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Sean Owen > > wrote: >> > I think the @_root_ version is redundant because >> > @scala.annotation.varargs is redundant. Actually wouldn't we just >> > import varargs and write @varargs? >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski > > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs annotation. >> >> There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like DataFrameReader >> >> or functions as well as examples of @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs, >> >> e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. >> >> >> >> I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs only. >> WDYT? >> >> >> >> Pozdrawiam, >> >> Jacek Laskowski >> >> >> >> https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ >> >> Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark >> >> Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski >> >> >> >> - >> >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >> >> >> > >> > - >> > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >> > >> >> - >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >> >>
Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
I was also actually wondering why it is being written like this. I actually took a look for this before and wanted to fix them but I found https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12077/files#r58041468 So, I kind of persuaded myself that committers already know about it and there is a reason for this. I'd like to know the full details why we don't import but write full path though. On 9 Sep 2016 5:28 a.m., "Jakob Odersky" wrote: > +1 to Sean's answer, importing varargs. > In this case the _root_ is also unnecessary (it would be required in > case you were using it in a nested package called "scala" itself) > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > > I think the @_root_ version is redundant because > > @scala.annotation.varargs is redundant. Actually wouldn't we just > > import varargs and write @varargs? > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs annotation. > >> There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like DataFrameReader > >> or functions as well as examples of @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs, > >> e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. > >> > >> I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs only. > WDYT? > >> > >> Pozdrawiam, > >> Jacek Laskowski > >> > >> https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ > >> Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark > >> Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> > > > > - > > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > > > > - > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >
Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
+1 to Sean's answer, importing varargs. In this case the _root_ is also unnecessary (it would be required in case you were using it in a nested package called "scala" itself) On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > I think the @_root_ version is redundant because > @scala.annotation.varargs is redundant. Actually wouldn't we just > import varargs and write @varargs? > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs annotation. >> There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like DataFrameReader >> or functions as well as examples of @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs, >> e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. >> >> I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs only. WDYT? >> >> Pozdrawiam, >> Jacek Laskowski >> >> https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ >> Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark >> Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski >> >> - >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > - To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
Re: @scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
I think the @_root_ version is redundant because @scala.annotation.varargs is redundant. Actually wouldn't we just import varargs and write @varargs? On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > Hi, > > The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs annotation. > There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like DataFrameReader > or functions as well as examples of @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs, > e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. > > I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs only. WDYT? > > Pozdrawiam, > Jacek Laskowski > > https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ > Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark > Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski > > - > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > - To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
@scala.annotation.varargs or @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs?
Hi, The code is not consistent with @scala.annotation.varargs annotation. There are classes with @scala.annotation.varargs like DataFrameReader or functions as well as examples of @_root_.scala.annotation.varargs, e.g. Window or UserDefinedAggregateFunction. I think it should be consistent and @scala.annotation.varargs only. WDYT? Pozdrawiam, Jacek Laskowski https://medium.com/@jaceklaskowski/ Mastering Apache Spark 2.0 http://bit.ly/mastering-apache-spark Follow me at https://twitter.com/jaceklaskowski - To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
