[protobuf] Option allow_alias unknown

2013-11-01 Thread greg . malatestinic
protoc is choking on the enum option allow_alias. I'm using libprotoc 
2.5.0.
Any help is appreciated.

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


[protobuf] Re: Enum values are siblings of their type, not children of it.

2013-11-01 Thread greg . malatestinic
The solution is available in the latest version??? Please elaborate. I'm 
using 2.5.0 and I don't see it.

-Greg

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:12:46 PM UTC-4, Giri Guntipalli wrote:

 Hi enum values conflict for C++ is there any solution now solution 
 suggested below is available in latest version any workarounds to handle 
 this problem with 2.4.1 or latert versions.
  
 Giri
 On Friday, 20 August 2010 23:42:30 UTC+5:30, alopecoid wrote:

 Hi, 

 This post is about the fact that protobuf enum values use C++ scoping 
 rules, meaning that, unlike in Java, enum values are siblings of their 
 type, not children of it. 

 Say I have the following contrived message: 

   message MyMessage { 
 enum Foo { 
   FIRST = 0; 
   SECOND = 1; 
   BOTH = 2; 
 } 
 required Foo foo = 1; 

 enum Bar { 
   FIRST = 0; 
   SECOND = 1; 
   BOTH = 2; 
 } 
 required Bar bar = 2; 
   } 

 This wouldn't compile because the protobuf compiler recognizes the 
 fact that for C++, the generated enum values for Foo and Bar would 
 conflict with each other. 

 However, for Java, this wouldn't be a problem. I would like to propose 
 that instead of punishing the generated Java code because of C++'s 
 strange enum behavior (by forcing developers to rename their enum 
 values even though they don't collide), that instead, the generated C+ 
 + enum declarations are wrapped in their own nested namespaces? For 
 example, something like: 

   namespace Foo { 
 enum Enum { 
   FIRST = 0; 
   SECOND = 1; 
   BOTH = 2; 
 } 
   } 

   namespace Bar { 
 enum Enum { 
   FIRST = 0; 
   SECOND = 1; 
   BOTH = 2; 
 } 
   } 

 At this point, the enum values would be accessed like Foo::FIRST, 
 Bar::FIRST, etc, which would eliminate the enum value collision 
 problem altogether, and at the same time make them appear to behave 
 more like Java's enum scoping rules (which arguably make more sense). 

 Thoughts? 

 Thank you.



-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.