You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Or put another way, should a table just be an array with a schema? Note that graphs also employ schemas, which is essentially just a vector of name-type information. Current approach:
[# // Table
[ id:(integer32:0) name:(text:) rank:(double:0) ] // First array is interpreted as a schema
[ ... ] // Data row 1
[ ... ] // Data row 2
[ ... ] // Data row 3
...
#]
Instead, if a schema was enclosed in [# ... #] delimeters (to use a stand-in for now), a table would just be an array with a schema:
[ // Regular array (so far)
[#[ ... ]#] // Schema must be first element. A schema is an array of name-type information.
[ ... ] // Data row 1
[ ... ] // Data row 2
[ ... ] // Data row 3
...
]
It is still an open question whether we should allow rows without explicit brackets. That is, given a schema with N elements, the first N elements would define row 1, the next N elements row 2, and so on. It would be an error for an array with schema of size N to have M elements, where M mod N ≠ 0.
Note that a typed array is then just a table with a schema of a single component:
[[#(double:0)#] 1, 3.4, -8.6, 10.2, 0, 0, 1.8 ]
There's a possible problem with this approach, since graph nodes or edges can be tables. If we eliminate a special table signifier (something in [# ... #] delimeters), then the "array with a schema is a table" has to be well understood. I think that's ok.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Or put another way, should a table just be an array with a schema? Note that graphs also employ schemas, which is essentially just a vector of name-type information. Current approach:
Instead, if a schema was enclosed in
[# ... #]
delimeters (to use a stand-in for now), a table would just be an array with a schema:It is still an open question whether we should allow rows without explicit brackets. That is, given a schema with N elements, the first N elements would define row 1, the next N elements row 2, and so on. It would be an error for an array with schema of size N to have M elements, where M mod N ≠ 0.
Note that a typed array is then just a table with a schema of a single component:
There's a possible problem with this approach, since graph nodes or edges can be tables. If we eliminate a special table signifier (something in
[# ... #]
delimeters), then the "array with a schema is a table" has to be well understood. I think that's ok.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: