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
-
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
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 af
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, 201
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 want
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 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
+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.va
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
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 @s
10 matches
Mail list logo
