Skip to content

Conversation

@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor

@cpcloud cpcloud commented Feb 16, 2018

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@cpcloud cpcloud Feb 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This requires ARROW-2145 to address.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you want to wait for ARROW-2145 or merge this independently?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have a couple more tests to add here

@cpcloud cpcloud force-pushed the ARROW-2160 branch 3 times, most recently from 8067876 to 0d7f252 Compare February 19, 2018 20:44
@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor Author

cpcloud commented Feb 19, 2018

@wesm @pitrou I reintroduced boost regex for parsing the decimal number, to address ARROW-2153. We were using a fairly straightforward algorithm before that implemented the regular expression by hand but it didn't allow numbers like 1e1. The regular expression to match that would be very complex and hard to read if written by hand so I decided to use boost regex. I didn't go with STL library because it doesn't support named capture groups, which I think make the code much more readable.

@cpcloud cpcloud changed the title ARROW-2160: [C++/Python] Fix decimal precision inference ARROW-2153/ARROW-2160: [C++/Python] Fix decimal precision inference Feb 19, 2018
@wesm
Copy link
Member

wesm commented Feb 19, 2018

std::regex is totally broken in gcc 4.8.x (what we're using for conda/pip releases) AFAIK so using <regex> isn't even an option right now. When we get past gcc 4.8 it might be nice to use the STL regexen

@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor Author

cpcloud commented Feb 19, 2018

Yep, I believe std::regex_match is implemented as return false; :(

@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor Author

cpcloud commented Feb 19, 2018

In gcc 4.8 that is. 4.9 may be implemented, but I don't think it supports named capture groups.

@wesm
Copy link
Member

wesm commented Feb 21, 2018

needs rebase

@cpcloud
Copy link
Contributor Author

cpcloud commented Feb 23, 2018

Closed in favor of #1651

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants