Does default on required fields currently have a meaning? It compiles but I'm not sure if there are cases where the default is ever usable. Maybe required with default specified could mean use the default if not explicitly set. This change would also allow you to get rid of unused required fields over 2 releases. This might be too serious of an api change at this point, but it seems like required has fallen out of favor anyway, so maybe this wouldn't be too bad.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Jeff Plaisance > <jeffplaisa...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> It seems like the issue here is that optional has been overloaded to mean >> two different things: >> >> 1) Not really optional but in order to do rolling upgrades we're making it >> optional. The default should be used if it is not set. In my opinion, in >> this case there should be no "has" method because either its result is >> irrelevant or it is being used to overload some other meaning on top of >> optional. >> 2) Optional in the sense of Option, Maybe, Nullable, empty, can be null, >> whatever you want to call it. In my opinion this should be encapsulated in >> the type so that the programmer is forced to handle all possible cases. The >> has method should not be used for this because it is too easy to ignore. >> > > Yes, I think you're right, and I see how it makes sense to distinguish > these two by the presence or absence of an explicit default value. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@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.
