I fully second that opinion. We rely a lot on being able to set explicit defaults that are not language defaults (Java 0, "", false, etc). It puzzles me to even think as to why someone might want to take that feature away!!!
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 6:50:37 AM UTC-6, Jeremy Swigart wrote: > > That sounds like a poor design decision, and one easily readded without > breaking anything. If a field doesn't have an explicit default, you use 0 > or whatever, thereby not breaking anyone not using them, but if an explicit > default is provided that is used instead. I am using that feature as well. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
