So, per the textproto format spec, what I'm thinking here *should *work,
but I want to see if there are gotchas in various textproto implementations
that I might not be aware of. Yes, I could try it out myself, but there's
no way I'm going to know all the sharp edges of every textproto
implementation. :)
Let's say I have an enum like:
message MyStuff {
enum MyBoolean {
UNSPECIFIED = 0;
TRUE = 1;
FALSE = 2;
}
}
message MyFile {
MyStuff::MyBolean is_cool = 1;
}
And then I have a textproto that looks like this:
is_cool: FALSE
Per the textproto spec, the boolean "true" and "false" values are specific
to boolean fields and are only parsed as booleans for boolean fields, so
per the spec, that *should *work. However, will the textproto parser parse
what I have written correctly as the enum FALSE, or might it accidentally
interpret it as a boolean and set the value to 0?
(All that said, that enum might also run into problems in C++ because it
conflicts with C++ macros, right? Sorry, I know I'm asking "Can I do
something that the best practices say not to do," but it really would be
helpful in my situation if I could do it. One thing I'm looking for here is
an "out" for people who have specified a configuration as a boolean value
and now want to move it to being an enum because it has more than two
states, assuming that all data is textproto and never binary proto.)
-Max
--
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 view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/CACHWaZ%3DE55HDfTvqHq9EbDftNBbO2SgdywRDwp5gHBA%3D6YVT2Q%40mail.gmail.com.
