thisisnic edited a comment on pull request #10598: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/10598#issuecomment-868468794
> > About the actual options in this PR: that seems like a good start, but I don't think all those options would be needed in a single Options struct? For example, the ambiguous/non-existent handling, those can be put in a specific options struct for the kernel that needs it? > > I'm ok with single Options struct or multiple. > If we go for multiple we'd probably split this into `TemporalStrftimeOptions` ([ARROW-13174](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-13174)), `TemporalComponentExtractionOptions`, `TemporalLocalizationOptions` ([ARROW-13033](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-13033)). Am I missing something? Those make sense to me. I think there may be other Options structs we might need; for example, ones for kernels that do maths with dates. However, we don't need to know all of these in advance, right? -- 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: [email protected]
