alamb commented on code in PR #7820:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/7820#discussion_r1359317116
##########
datafusion/physical-expr/src/functions.rs:
##########
@@ -964,47 +957,6 @@ fn func_order_in_one_dimension(
}
}
-/// This function specifies monotonicity behaviors for built-in scalar
functions.
-/// The list can be extended, only mathematical and datetime functions are
-/// considered for the initial implementation of this feature.
-pub fn get_func_monotonicity(fun: &BuiltinScalarFunction) ->
Option<FuncMonotonicity> {
Review Comment:
Can we please avoid a breaking api change by at least adding `pub use
datafusion_expr::get_func_monotonicity` in this file?
However, since we are going to move this code anyways, what would you think
about putting this code as a method on `BuiltinScalarFunction` itself, so that
it was easier to find
Something like
```rust
impl BuiltinScalarFunction {
pub fn monotonicity(&self) -> Option<FuncMonotonicity> {
...
}
}
```
And leaving the `get_func_monotonicity` as a deprecated function, perhaps
like
```rust
#[deprecated(message="use BuiltinScalarFunction::monotonicity")]
pub fn get_func_monotonicity(fun: &BuiltinScalarFunction) ->
Option<FuncMonotonicity> {
fun.monotonicity()
}
```
##########
datafusion/physical-expr/src/functions.rs:
##########
@@ -903,14 +904,6 @@ pub fn create_physical_fun(
})
}
-/// Monotonicity of the `ScalarFunctionExpr` with respect to its arguments.
-/// Each element of this vector corresponds to an argument and indicates
whether
-/// the function's behavior is monotonic, or non-monotonic/unknown for that
argument, namely:
-/// - `None` signifies unknown monotonicity or non-monotonicity.
-/// - `Some(true)` indicates that the function is monotonically increasing
w.r.t. the argument in question.
-/// - Some(false) indicates that the function is monotonically decreasing
w.r.t. the argument in question.
-pub type FuncMonotonicity = Vec<Option<bool>>;
Review Comment:
Perhaps we can leave a `pub use datafusion_expr::FuncMonotonicty` in this
module to ease backwards compatibility?
--
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: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
