Can you write a small example program demonstrating your problem?  I can
then debug it.

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 8:33 AM, <nullsqua...@gmail.com> wrote:

> PS. is there a reason the compiler turns camelCaseFields into
> noncamelcasefields, but messageNamesAreStillPreservedWithCamelCase?


Historical reasons.  In the early days of protocol buffers, there was
disagreement about the style that field names should use.  The Google C++
style guide says that field names (and their accessors) should be
lowercase-with-underscores, whereas Java users prefer camelcase.  As a
result, we ended up with .proto files using both styles.  At some point
someone decided that the generated C++ code should force field names to
lower-case to match the C++ style guide, and someone else decided that the
Java code generator should force names to camelcase to match the Java style
guide.  Eventually, we ended up standardizing on lowercase-with-underscores
for field names in .proto files, as documented in the style guide:
http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/style.html .  The
transformation of camelcase to lowercase in the C++ code generator had to
stay for compatibility reasons.

Class names, on the other hand, use camelcase in both C++ and Java at
Google.  So we don't transform those.

I recommend following the style guide for best results.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to