I'm +1 on this idea, since it's been a problem since the beginning. Why not use regular casting notation though, rather than develop another notation? That's what we discussed originally when we were deciding whether to require casting or do it silently. So instead of D->a or SCALAR(D) it would be (int)D.
On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Jonathan Coveney wrote:
> I like this idea, and I think we should deprecate the old syntax, and we
> can discuss later when it'd get deleted (and when that would be worth it...
> if we have a new syntax, it seems pretty painless to have the other one
> float around for backwards compatibility, and if anyone uses it it's a sort
> of "caveat emptor").
> 2012/4/8 Aniket Mokashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I have noticed early users of pig often hit issues because of confusing
>> syntax between scalars and projections. I think scalar syntax should be
>> made more explicit for users to use in order to avoid these problems. For
>> example- D = foreach C generate B->count; etc.
>> I am sure we might break some backward compatibility but we can at least
>> deprecate the syntax for a few versions and eventually move to new syntax.