Re: [protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 6:44:27 PM UTC-4, Michael Powell wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-4, Adam Cozzette wrote: >> >> I think that specification has suffered a little bit of neglect (sorry >> about that), because in practice our C++ parser is really the

Re: [protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

Re: syntax: It really means string literal, whose value must be "proto2" or "proto3". Looks like it's been cleaned up, but not long ago it also had an incorrect definition for the service syntax, suggesting an alternate way to define streaming methods that protoc did not actually support.

Re: [protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:19 PM Adam Cozzette wrote: > I'm not sure how soon we can expect the proto2 support in C#. Jie, do you > happen to know how close it is to being complete? > I don't think it will be very soon. We do not have people in google working on C# (I only review PRs). Only one

Re: [protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

I'm not sure how soon we can expect the proto2 support in C#. Jie, do you happen to know how close it is to being complete? But if you're just trying to generate C# code at build time, I was thinking you could also use for example a C++ binary to generate the C# code, without needing SWIG or

Re: [protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

+Jie Luo who knows the most about C# The one thing that might be a problem is that C# does not yet have full support for proto2, though that work is in progress (see this most recent pull request ). That could make it hard to parse the

Re: [protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:17 PM Adam Cozzette wrote: > > I think that specification has suffered a little bit of neglect (sorry about > that), because in practice our C++ parser is really the de facto standard and > we have not recently made an effort to go through and make sure the official >

Re: [protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

I think that specification has suffered a little bit of neglect (sorry about that), because in practice our C++ parser is really the de facto standard and we have not recently made an effort to go through and make sure the official spec matches it perfectly. My reading of that string (/[^\0\n\\]/)

[protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:22 PM Michael Powell wrote: > > Concerning Constant, literally from the v2 spec: Rather, Syntax section, excuse me... > syntax = "syntax" "=" quote "proto2" quote ";" > > Do I read that correctly you can expect either 'proto2' or "proto2", > but never 'proto2" nor

[protobuf] Re: [Proto2] Language spec help

Concerning Constant, literally from the v2 spec: syntax = "syntax" "=" quote "proto2" quote ";" Do I read that correctly you can expect either 'proto2' or "proto2", but never 'proto2" nor "proto2' ? If accurate, that just seems to me to be lazy spec authorship... Thanks! On Wed, Oct 31, 2018