refactor: use a common macro to define math UDFs #9598
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
alamb
approved these changes
Mar 13, 2024
|
This is a really nice design |
comphead
reviewed
Mar 13, 2024
Co-authored-by: comphead <[email protected]>
comphead
approved these changes
Mar 13, 2024
|
Merging to get this (good) new pattern estabilished before too many other functions get ported |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #9552.
Rationale for this change
Use a common macro to define unary math UDFs, aiming to reduce code duplication and facilitate subsequent porting.
These functions include
https://github.com/apache/arrow-datafusion/blob/0302d6530a5a7fffe7da40e0f3b13794a9c693ff/datafusion/physical-expr/src/math_expressions.rs#L158-L178
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Yes. By existing tests.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No