-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Unified Function Signature
type coercion handling for Nulls
#12698
Comments
Nulls
Nulls
rather
Nulls
ratherSignature
type coercion handling for Nulls
rather
Signature
type coercion handling for Nulls
ratherSignature
type coercion handling for Nulls
We can introduce TypeSignature::String similar to Numeric one |
Would that allow to avoid use of BTW this related to two topics
|
Yes, I think this should be the goal The usecase for
I still don't fully understand why we can't just adjust the existing coercion rules to coerce Null to any needed type |
filed #12725 for this.
i would assume this is the case today. |
I have an old issue about the coercion rule and type signature #10507 I think the downside of Ideally we should have general signature like |
Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?
The code in #12308 from @mesejo added explicit
DataType::Null
data type handling for type coercion for certain functionsHowever, this may have introduced a regression for handling Dictionary types #12670
Describe the solution you'd like
I would like the "normal" function signature resolution to handle Null coercion rather than requiring functions to provide a custom coerce method (as was done in #12308)
Comments from #12670 (comment)
Describe alternatives you've considered
Ideally I think the coercion logic should be able to substitute
Null
for any data type passed inSo given a signature like
I would expect the coercion logic to be able to handle inputs like the following (by casting
Null
to Utf8View)Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: