[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-627?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13005216#comment-13005216
]
David Reiss commented on THRIFT-627:
------------------------------------
The pointers check can be moved outside of the loop, and the name
capitalization might seem a bit strange to some C++ programmers, but I think
it's fine as-is.
> 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.patch, thrift-627.patch,
> 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.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
