rdblue commented on code in PR #466:
URL: https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/466#discussion_r1859237857
##########
LogicalTypes.md:
##########
@@ -609,9 +609,20 @@ that is neither contained by a `LIST`- or `MAP`-annotated
group nor annotated
by `LIST` or `MAP` should be interpreted as a required list of required
elements where the element type is the type of the field.
-Implementations should use either `LIST` and `MAP` annotations _or_ unannotated
-repeated fields, but not both. When using the annotations, no unannotated
-repeated types are allowed.
+```
+// List<Integer> (non-null list, non-null elements)
+repeated int32 num;
+
+// List<Tuple<Integer, String>> (non-null list, non-null elements)
+repeated group my_list {
+ required int32 num;
+ optional binary str (STRING);
+}
Review Comment:
I think this example is counter-productive. We don't want anyone using
un-annotated lists and maps. While the paragraph above explains how to
interpret un-annotated `repeated` fields, I don't want anyone to see an example
here and think that it is something that should be copied. I think it is
already clear enough and I would simply move on rather than drawing attention
to this as a possibility.
--
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: issues-unsubscr...@parquet.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@parquet.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@parquet.apache.org
