On Thu Jan 15 2015 at 7:01:33 AM Alex Antonov <aant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
The decision is made to make protobuf easier to implement efficiently in a
lot of other languages that we want to support and for some features like
JSON that we are going to add. I think we can all agree that default value
is a useful feature, but it's not a mandatory feature to protobuf and
creates real problems in the implementation of some languages (For example
some languages may use a simple struct to represent a protobuf message and
there isn't a way to specify default values. Or in the case of JSON, a
client might have no way to know the non-0 default values.)
> 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.