I see. I don't see where the spec explicitly forbids shared pointers, but the encoding section talks about the traversal limit in case of cyclic pointers, which makes sense to guard against attacks. The lack of ability to express them in the schema guards against the creation of footguns I guess.
I'll move forward with manual indexing into a list of nodes. It's probably about the same in terms of efficiency anyway. Just good to know I'm not going against the grain. Thanks Ian! Daniel- On Monday, February 17, 2020 at 1:57:38 PM UTC-8, Ian Denhardt wrote: > > Yes, the capnproto spec officially forbids sharing inside a message > Different implementations may have varying levels of tolerance for > this, but it's probably best not to bend the spec here. > > Have a look at schema.capnp, in particular the way the `Node` type is > managed by id, for some inspiration. > > -Ian > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cap'n Proto" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/capnproto/6241a277-5961-4186-a9e6-3a23be350d08%40googlegroups.com.
