[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-627?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12969013#action_12969013
]
David Reiss commented on THRIFT-627:
------------------------------------
No need to generate these at all if "pointers" is true. Those are for internal
use only.
Argument should be a const reference, not a value.
Indentation still seems a bit weird. For example, line 38 of the patch looks
too indented.
There is still trailing whitespace.
The this should be done for all non-required fields, probably.
> should c++ have setters for optional fields?
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-627
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-627
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: C++ - Compiler
> Environment: c++
> Reporter: Ben Taitelbaum
> Assignee: David Reiss
> Attachments: thrift-627_0.5.x.patch, thrift-627_trunk.patch
>
>
> It seems non-intuitive to me to have to set __isset.someField = true after
> setting an optional field someField on a struct. Would it make sense to have
> a set_someField method that would both set the field and modify __isset?
> One of the cases for this is for when a field goes from being required to
> being optional, and it's easy to forget to set __isset in the code.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
