There are increasing numbers of references to "well-known" types in protos. For instance, I see changes in the Go implementation to support them. There were passing references in release notes in this group.
However, the main protobuf site includes no narrative explanation that I can find. The idea of a few well-known types to represent "Boxed" values since proto3 removes the ability to null out fields makes sense, but the only documentation I could find, in the reference section of the protobuf site at https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/reference/google.protobuf, includes all sorts of things like Struct, Method, Mixin, etc. that are entirely unclear. Is there a conversation happening somewhere that I'm missing, or is it Google-internal but not documented outside yet? Thanks, Zellyn ps - the reintroduction of message types for primitives rather undermines my belief in the arguments for removing optional fields in proto3 in the first place. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to the folks designing proto3: is the thinking articulated clearly somewhere? -- 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 protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
