@Till: Correct
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote:
> IMO the symbol notation makes it slightly easier to write Table API
> expressions, because the IDE can assist you in what operations are
> supported by the expression DSL whereas the string notation will only give
> you a syntax error upon compilation, right?
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> 'Symbol is actually syntactic sugar for Symbol("Symbol") which is part of
>> the Scala standard library. It is a core feature of Scala which IMO is
>> perfectly fine to use. I'm not sure whether it makes the expression much
>> easier to read but it is a neat feature already in place.
>>
>> @Stephan: As far as I know, the String-based parsing is already possible in
>> the Scala Table API.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I am not a deep Scala progammer either, but I think the symbols are a
>> > pretty wide-spread concept.
>> > For example, the Scalding tuple API makes heavy use of them as well.
>> >
>> > That said, I do like the idea that the Scala Table API supports the
>> string
>> > variant as well, for homogeneity.
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hey all,
>> > >
>> > > I am not very proficient with Scala and have some questions regarding
>> the
>> > > Scala Table API:
>> > >
>> > > The logical queries in the Java API are all String-based, e.g.
>> > >
>> > > table.groupBy("word")
>> > >
>> > > In the Scala API, this works as well, but what's further possible is
>> > this:
>> > >
>> > > expr.groupBy('word)
>> > >
>> > > For comparisions you use something like `a === `b. Note that the ' is a
>> > > Scala symbol.
>> > >
>> > > - How common is this kind of notation for Scala users?
>> > > - Are both types of expressions equivalent or can you do more with the
>> > > special Scala syntax Table API?
>> > >
>> > > I am asking, because I was wondering whether we should stick to the
>> > > String-based notation in the docs and have the special syntax as an
>> > > optional thing. There is no reason for this, if this is common in the
>> > Scala
>> > > world though. :-)
>> > >
>> > > – Ufuk
>> > >
>> >
>>
