shehabgamin commented on PR #14268: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/14268#issuecomment-2632975463
> As we have discussed, we should avoid using old Coercible signature and also the TypeSignatureClass that is used in Coercible, because any change might impact downstream projects, although if we add new `TypeSignatureClass` like what you did will not, but adding more soon to remove things are not good idea @jayzhan211 I thought you said it was okay to add a new signature if it helps downstream projects. See here: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/14268#issuecomment-2629247219 I reverted `Native` back to the original logic before this PR and then I added `AnyNative`. > I think we can work directly on CoercibleV2 I mentioned for these functions IMO `CoercibleV2` would be out of scope for this PR. It looks like @alamb would like to get this PR sorted out if possible for `45` (see here: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/14008#issuecomment-2631357227) If I am understanding you correctly, you are okay with adding a new signature but not applying them to the UDFs in this PR? Should I apply User-defined coercion as you were mentioning earlier? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
