On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:01 AM, <ray.rizz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just reread your post, and if I understand correctly has_*() does
> tell the receiver if an optional field was received or not. At least,
> in C++ that is the case.
Right. And in Java, Python, and hopefully all other languages.
> Someone on another team needs to use C#, and they are looking at the
> http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-net/ version. However, they say
> that there is no way in C# to tell if the field is present or not when
> a message is received. This seems like a very basic feature of the
> protocol, so I am very curious if this is true or not.
You'd have to ask Marc Gravell (cc'd) about that.
I'm pretty sure Jon Skeet's C# implementation provides has*() accessors,
since his implementation is a direct port of the official Java
> On Feb 11, 6:34 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> > Yes. That's the purpose of has_*() -- to tell you if the field was/will
> > sent explicitly.
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM, <ray.rizz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > From what I have read, it seams that if I don't send an optional
> > > field, the field will have an explicit or implicit value at the
> > > receiver. However, will functions like has_ in C++ know that the
> > > received message is missing the optional field?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at