Hi Mark, I know but that could harm readability. AFAIK, for this reason, that is not (or rarely) used in Spark.
2016-04-17 15:54 GMT+09:00 Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com>: > FWIW, 3 should work as just `.map(function)`. > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com> wrote: > >> Hi Hyukjin, >> >> Thanks for asking. >> >> For 1 the change is almost always better. >> >> For 2 it depends on the context. In general if the type is not obvious, >> it helps readability to explicitly declare them. >> >> For 3 again it depends on context. >> >> >> So while it is a good idea to change 1 to reflect a more consistent code >> base (and maybe we should codify it), it is almost always a bad idea to >> change 2 and 3 just for the sake of changing them. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> First of all, I am sorry that this is relatively trivial and too minor >>> but I just want to be clear on this and careful for the more PRs in the >>> future. >>> >>> Recently, I have submitted a PR ( >>> https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/12413) about Scala style and this >>> was merged. In this PR, I changed >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> from >>> >>> .map(item => { >>> ... >>> }) >>> >>> to >>> >>> .map { item => >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. >>> from >>> >>> words.foreachRDD { (rdd: RDD[String], time: Time) => ... >>> >>> to >>> >>> words.foreachRDD { (rdd, time) => ... >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. >>> >>> from >>> >>> .map { x => >>> function(x) >>> } >>> >>> to >>> >>> .map(function(_)) >>> >>> >>> My question is, I think it looks 2. and 3. are arguable (please see the >>> discussion in the PR). >>> I agree that I might not have to change those in the future but I just >>> wonder if I should revert 2. and 3.. >>> >>> FYI, >>> - The usage of 2. is pretty rare. >>> - 3. is pretty a lot. but the PR corrects ones like above only when the >>> val within closure looks obviously meaningless (such as x or a) and with >>> only single line. >>> >>> I would appreciate that if you add some comments and opinions on this. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >> >> >
