> (I believe C++ only omits writing fields explicitly marked as optional in the > IDL). This is correct.
--David On 11/22/2010 01:42 PM, Mark Slee wrote: > This certainly seems like a reasonable thing to add. I'm not sure if there is > a reason we have omitted these. > > I'm guessing that most people are just using C++ for server endpoints, which > mainly receive data structures and use the implicit field semantics whereby > fields are always written in responses (I believe C++ only omits writing > fields explicitly marked as optional in the IDL). > > I expect a patch which adds formal setters would be met with little > opposition. Definitely feel free to dive in and add this. > > Cheers, > mcslee > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fournier, Jean-Pierre (JP) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: no c++ accessor methods? > > > > Hi, > > I just completed a little c++ based thrift 0.5.0 prototype and I was a bit > surprised that there were no setter methods for fields. > > This is the kind of code i ended up writing: > > myContact.firstname = string(parsedValue); > myContact.__isset.firstname = true; > > I'm curious why there are no accessor methods generated for c++. > > (I'm a c++ newbie so I wouldn't be surprised to hear that I am doing > something stupid) > > > Any thoughts or pointers appreciated. > > jp >
