Thank you !
That solves my problem.
/Sören
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, sen
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:20 AM, sorent
wrote:
>
> > Sorry, there's not a reliable way to do this unless you depend the
> encoder
> > writing the tags in order, which is not guaranteed.
>
> Just to make sure I get this right ... (refering to the "Union Types"
> example) if
> I encode a buffer incl
> Sorry, there's not a reliable way to do this unless you depend the encoder
> writing the tags in order, which is not guaranteed.
Just to make sure I get this right ... (refering to the "Union Types"
example) if
I encode a buffer including both Bar and Baz then the order is not
guaranteed ...
it
Sorry, there's not a reliable way to do this unless you depend the encoder
writing the tags in order, which is not guaranteed.
One thing you could do is instead of placing an enum field inside your
message to identify the type, stick a one-byte tag on the front of the
message instead. You will hav
