is actually intentional, see this closed
issue https://github.com/google/protobuf/issues/234.
Alfred
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 6:36:59 PM UTC-4, Nikolay Mladenov wrote:
I am also evaluating proto2 vs proto3 and even though it seems proto3
should be the way to go I really miss the has_
I am also evaluating proto2 vs proto3 and even though it seems proto3
should be the way to go I really miss the has_** functionality in proto3.
It seems the following proto pattern may be a workaround:
message M{
oneof optional_value{
int32 value = 1;
}
}
It does generate value(),
