[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-627?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Eric Rannaud updated THRIFT-627: -------------------------------- Attachment: thrift-627-no-cap-name.patch > should c++ have setters for optional fields? > -------------------------------------------- > > Key: THRIFT-627 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-627 > Project: Thrift > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: C++ - Compiler > Environment: c++ > Reporter: Ben Taitelbaum > Fix For: 0.7 > > Attachments: thrift-627-no-cap-name.patch, thrift-627.patch, > thrift-627.patch, thrift-627_0.5.x.patch, thrift-627_trunk.patch > > > It seems non-intuitive to me to have to set __isset.someField = true after > setting an optional field someField on a struct. Would it make sense to have > a set_someField method that would both set the field and modify __isset? > One of the cases for this is for when a field goes from being required to > being optional, and it's easy to forget to set __isset in the code. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira