arrow-array: generalize make_builder/StructBuilder #6764
Closed
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
Users of this library may want to create their own builder types in order to experiment with new API shapes, or to support features that are currently not supported by the library. With minimal changes to the shape of the API, users can now extend the make_builder.
|
meh, for other reasons this wasn't that helpful and I just copied the |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Users of this library may want to create their own builder types in order to experiment with new API shapes, or to support features that are currently not supported by the library. With minimal changes to the shape of the API, users can now extend the make_builder.
Which issue does this PR close?
Relates to #6349
Rationale for this change
I am experimenting with how to handle union types for some dynamic data. As #6349 lays out, there is currently no support for unions underneath structs. That left me in a somewhat desperate situation whereby I was copying out the logic of
make_builderin order to add one more case. Instead, with this change I can reuse the existing logic and intercept it as needed.Are there any user-facing changes?
No APIs are harmed in this change.