feat: support non-struct type class structure #328
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jacques-n
previously approved these changes
Sep 22, 2022
westonpace
reviewed
Sep 24, 2022
site/docs/types/type_classes.md
Outdated
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| This declares a new type (namespaced to the associated YAML file) called "point". This type is composed of two `i32` values named longitude and latitude. Once a type has been declared, it can be used in function declarations. [TBD: should field references be allowed to dereference the components of a user defined type?] | ||
| The structure field of a type is only intended to inform systems that don't have built-in support for the type how they can transfer the data type from one point to another without unnecessarily serialization/deserialization *and* without loss of type safety. Note that it is currently not possible to "unpack" a user-defined type class into its structure type or components thereof without also defining a function to do that packing/unpacking. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| The structure field of a type is only intended to inform systems that don't have built-in support for the type how they can transfer the data type from one point to another without unnecessarily serialization/deserialization *and* without loss of type safety. Note that it is currently not possible to "unpack" a user-defined type class into its structure type or components thereof without also defining a function to do that packing/unpacking. | |
| The structure field of a type is only intended to inform systems that don't have built-in support for the type how they can transfer the data type from one point to another without unnecessary serialization/deserialization *and* without loss of type safety. Note that it is currently not possible to "unpack" a user-defined type class into its structure type or components thereof without also defining a function to do that packing/unpacking. |
Small typo but also, I don't really understand this last sentence. Can you expand on what you mean here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed typo and reworded sentence in ad75c2a. Does it make more sense when written that way? The point is to get rid of the TBD w.r.t. whether FieldRefs can index into non-opaque user-defined types.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, thank you. The new wording is clear.
westonpace
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This implements and documents the things discussed in https://substrait.slack.com/archives/C02D7CTQXHD/p1662542471566549.