@xccui if you think using `<i>` is better I'm fine with that, I don't mind one way or the other.
However I don't understand: > before reaching a consensus about the format and the internal implementation, > I suggest to keep the current doc style, i.e., without mentioning the return > type, for now. We are already following a convention that for all of the math functions we are dropping precision and returning `double`. What's the point of not documenting it? If you could guarantee me that we will document those return types lets say within a month, I would be fine with postponing it. However I don't believe something like that would happen, so I prefer to incrementally start adding this return type information right now. Later if someone will want, we can reformat the page. I do not see any downside to such incremental approach until that moment. > why still indicating the return type for each numeric function explicitly? > How about adding a single note for that? since some of them can be implemented precisely (`abs`, `min`, `max`, `ceil`, ...), others can be for some variants (`power(DECIMAL, INT)`). We can state this general rule that functions returning `DOUBLE` are approximations, but we still need specific information for every function, whether it returns approximated (`DOUBLE`) or precise (`DECIMAL`) result. [ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/6700 ] This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for [email protected]
