I think we should strive to keep the Thrift IDL syntax independent from specific target language conventions, and optimize for internal consistency. I'd vote for the "." separator, since that's what's currently being used for namespace-type-things everywhere else in the Thrift IDL (for instance, when you include "other.thrift" and refer to its types by an "other." prefix).
Even if we did want to make a play for target-language consistency, it seems we have more Python/Java fans around here than C++/PHP anyways, so "." would probably still be the most natural choice. -----Original Message----- From: David Reiss [mailto:dre...@facebook.com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:52 PM To: thrift-user@incubator.apache.org Cc: Dvir Volk Subject: Re: Would love your thoughts on a change > re the syntax itself, I think it would look cooler if it followed cpp/php's > Foo::Bar :) Currently, it *is* following the C++ syntax of putting enum names at global scope. --David On 09/10/2010 12:47 PM, Dvir Volk wrote: > Looks like something that is better solved without keeping > backwards compatibility, as this is sort of a bug IMHO. > > re the syntax itself, I think it would look cooler if it followed cpp/php's > Foo::Bar :) > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com> wrote: > >> Everyone - >> >> We're discussing a change to the way enum values can be referenced in >> Thrift >> files over on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-897. I'd love >> to >> get more feedback from the user community about whether this is a good idea >> to go forward with. >> >> -Bryan >> >
