On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Sam Duke wrote:
> Is it not that case that displaying or using default values as if they are
> truth is not always appropriate/safe?
>
IMO, it's not the server's job to verify that the message sent by the
client is really exactly what the client intended. Sure, t
Great points and prompting some more philosophical thought :)
Sam
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 at 03:09 Kenton Varda wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Sam Duke wrote:
>
> I find that many cases where I at first think I need field presence
> actually make more sense as a union -- I find that, sur
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Sam Duke wrote:
> Thanks so much for the reply Kenton :) I've inlined as you've covered a lot
>
> On Thursday, 9 March 2017 20:49:49 UTC, Kenton Varda wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> Ross mostly covered this, but I'll give an official response as the
>> author:
>>
>> Ca
Suddenly the generics come into their own! great idea :)
On Thursday, 9 March 2017 20:45:25 UTC, Ian Denhardt wrote:
>
> Ideally the boilerplate could be cut down by having a standard type
> like:
>
> struct Option(T) {
> union {
> Some @0 :T;
> None @1 :Vo
Thanks so much for the reply Kenton :) I've inlined as you've covered a lot
On Thursday, 9 March 2017 20:49:49 UTC, Kenton Varda wrote:
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> Ross mostly covered this, but I'll give an official response as the author:
>
> Cap'n Proto has "presence", including hasX() accessors, for pointe
Hi Sam,
Ross mostly covered this, but I'll give an official response as the author:
Cap'n Proto has "presence", including hasX() accessors, for pointer types
(structs, lists, text, data; anything that is variable-size) but not for
primitives (integers, floats, bools).
The feature was not "remove
Ideally the boilerplate could be cut down by having a standard type
like:
struct Option(T) {
union {
Some @0 :T;
None @1 :Void;
}
}
And then just do:
struct Foo {
age @0 :Option(Int32);
}
But the wire format doesn't really do what
No worries. I'm not an official member of the Cap'n Proto project; I just
work on the Go bindings. You are correct that oneof is similar to unions
in Cap'n Proto.
Yeah, if you need an out-of-band signaling that a particular field is set
or not, then you can either use a union or wrap the field i
I think the idea of an unset sentinel value is a little awkward as it
conflates data validation with field presence which are nice concepts to
keep separate (in part for consistency in how you perform data validation).
As I understand it a union is synonymous to a Protobuf oneof field?
Is the rec
Quite the opposite: it's so that scalar values always have a fixed offset
from the beginning of the struct's data section. This may waste space on
the wire, but makes scalar access consistent and avoids branches in the
common case (read as fast).
However, it's worth noting that reading a scalar f
Really confused why this was removed? Is it for less space on the wire?
Field presence seems an excellent way to guard against regression as protos
evolve.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, 18:20 Ross Light, wrote:
> Correct. In this respect, Cap'n Proto is very close to proto3 semantics.
>
> On Thu, Mar 9,
Correct. In this respect, Cap'n Proto is very close to proto3 semantics.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM Sam Duke wrote:
> Looks like there's no hasX methods for scalars?
>
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, 15:57 Ross Light, wrote:
>
> https://capnproto.org/faq.html#how-do-i-make-a-field-optional
>
> On T
Looks like there's no hasX methods for scalars?
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, 15:57 Ross Light, wrote:
> https://capnproto.org/faq.html#how-do-i-make-a-field-optional
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017, 4:01 AM wrote:
>
> I couldn't find an explicit mention of this on the website, curious if
> CapNProto has also re
https://capnproto.org/faq.html#how-do-i-make-a-field-optional
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017, 4:01 AM wrote:
> I couldn't find an explicit mention of this on the website, curious if
> CapNProto has also removed field presence detection - it's a really useful
> feature to have!
>
> --
> You received this me
I couldn't find an explicit mention of this on the website, curious if
CapNProto has also removed field presence detection - it's a really useful
feature to have!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cap'n Proto" group.
To unsubscribe from this group an
15 matches
Mail list logo
