-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
docs: variadic functions clarification #851
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
lorenarosati
wants to merge
2
commits into
substrait-io:main
Choose a base branch
from
lorenarosati:variadic-wording
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+3
−14
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So the difference between the last parameter being optional and not optional is no longer relevant? The previous definition basically comes down to two rules:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This page was inconsistent with other explanations, which implied that the argument can be specified zero or more times if the minimum is zero. If the explanation with the last parameter being optional is the definition that we want, then other areas should be changed to explain that the argument can be specified one or more times if the minimum is zero. Should I revert to the previous definition and make that consistent instead? @vbarua
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@EpsilonPrime When you say
what do you mean? Are you talking about the last argument being nullable? That's not the same as being allowed to omit it entirely.
Thinking about this from a function resolution perspective, I wonder if it makes sense to require at least one argument for all variadic functions. You could imagine having something like:
- name: concat_to_string - args: - value: "varchar<L1>" name: "input" variadic: min: 0 return: "string" - args: - value: "string" name: "input" variadic: min: 0 return: "string"and if the function call doesn't have any arguments you can't distinguish between the 2. If folks end up wanting the 0 argument variant, they could define it explicitly like:
- name: concat_to_string return: "string"In the core spec right now, all variadic functions but
andandorrequire at least 1 argument.You could make the case that producers should simplify
and()directly totrueandor()directly tofalse.