alamb commented on PR #11263: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/11263#issuecomment-2211127784
> IMO I don't think this is a good abstration, because extract and position are actually quite different concept. For the point of view to user-defined planner, they could have their own implementation that may not be UDF, so it does not make sense to place them to plan_udf for me. > > I would prefer to have `plan_extract` and `plan_position` separately. I agree that even though the functions are somewhat repetitively named, it is better to be explicit in the function names rather than being implicit (via function name) as the API proposed in this PR would be Sorry I didn't see the comments on https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11207#issuecomment-2210845458 on https://github.com/apache/datafusion/issues/11207 earlier -- 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: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
