+1 for favoring native scala types. I think in terms of Scala code, we need a clear style standards definition to adhere to.
Gokhan On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> wrote: > in TextDelimitedReaderWriter.scala: > > =========================== > val itemList: > collection.mutable.MutableList[org.apache.mahout.common.Pair[Integer, > Double]] = new > collection.mutable.MutableList[org.apache.mahout.common.Pair[Integer, > Double]] > for (ve <- itemVector.nonZeroes) { > val item: org.apache.mahout.common.Pair[Integer, Double] = new > org.apache.mahout.common.Pair[Integer, Double](ve.index, ve.get) > itemList += item > } > ================================ > > (1) why scala code attempts to use commons.pair? What was wrong about > native Tuple type of scala? (I am trying to clean out mrlegacy dependencies > from spark module). > > (2) why it is so horribly styled (even for me)? comments are misaligned, > the lines routinely exceed 120 characters? > > Can these problems please be addressed? in particular, stuff like > o.a.m.common.Pair? And why it is even signed off on in the first place by > committers despite of clear style violations? > > thank you. >
