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! >
