We add a cast internally to support the implicit casting right now.
We have following Jiras for this-
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-1967
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-2205
Any more?
Thanks,
Aniket
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Alan Gates wrote:
> I was referring to
I was referring to 1 below. I think making this mandatory instead of allowed
is sufficient (obviously over time, so we don't break computability).
Alan.
On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Dmitriy Ryaboy wrote:
> Alan, which idea are you +1 on? I think (int) D is the current syntax.
>
> There are
Alan, which idea are you +1 on? I think (int) D is the current syntax.
There are a couple problems that people hit in the current scalar
implementation, both of which I think can be fixed without introducing
new syntax:
1) Require the cast, don't do it implicitly. This was actually in the
design
I'm +1 on this idea, since it's been a problem since the beginning. Why not
use regular casting notation though, rather than develop another notation?
That's what we discussed originally when we were deciding whether to require
casting or do it silently. So instead of D->a or SCALAR(D) it wou
I like this idea, and I think we should deprecate the old syntax, and we
can discuss later when it'd get deleted (and when that would be worth it...
if we have a new syntax, it seems pretty painless to have the other one
float around for backwards compatibility, and if anyone uses it it's a sort
of
Hi,
I have noticed early users of pig often hit issues because of confusing
syntax between scalars and projections. I think scalar syntax should be
made more explicit for users to use in order to avoid these problems. For
example- D = foreach C generate B->count; etc.
I am sure we might break some
