alamb commented on a change in pull request #307:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/307#discussion_r630079422
##########
File path: datafusion/src/physical_plan/functions.rs
##########
@@ -1373,20 +1374,28 @@ impl PhysicalExpr for ScalarFunctionExpr {
}
fn evaluate(&self, batch: &RecordBatch) -> Result<ColumnarValue> {
Review comment:
I think this approach, while a hack, seems reasonable to me
I agree with the comments on
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/303#discussion_r629859725 that
this does seem like a hack (it would be nicer to have an enum or something that
made this case explicit).
I would like to see this expectation documented near the place where a user
would define a UDF as well - either as an example or as a doccomment. Perhaps
somewhere in
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/master/datafusion/src/physical_plan/udf.rs
Or bonus points for adding an example:
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/master/datafusion-examples/examples/simple_udf.rs
cc; @msathis who I think faced a similar challenge in `now()`:
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/pull/288
--
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
