[PATCH] Fix super().__init__ call on python2.6

In 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 superclass constructor call don't need self as first arg but 2.6 raises error if it's given. --- python/google/protobuf/reflection.py |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/python/google/protobuf/reflection.py b/python/google/protobuf/reflec

Re: Make check reports error

I've fixed the sparc bug in SVN (revision 72). The bug is only a problem if you use DynamicMessage; otherwise you can stick with 2.0.2. On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Niclas Blomgren < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi again! > > Ok I didn't know that. When I from cygwin execute "ls c:" it work

Sparc 64-bit bug fixed

I just submitted revision 72, which fixes the bug that caused the tests to crash on 64-bit sparc machines. It turns out DynamicMessage computed some byte offsets incorrectly leading to alignment problems. The new code should be more robust. I'll probably do a 2.0.3 release within the next week or

Re: Interface and Implementation

On Nov 7, 11:06 am, Kenton Varda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think either approach can work, and the trade-offs depend on your > application.  If your protocol messages are very complex, for instance, then > maintaining parallel C++ classes can be a huge pain.  On the other hand, > protocol mes

Re: Interface and Implementation

I think either approach can work, and the trade-offs depend on your application. If your protocol messages are very complex, for instance, then maintaining parallel C++ classes can be a huge pain. On the other hand, protocol message classes are essentially structs, whereas with hand-written C++ c

Re: Interface and Implementation

On Nov 7, 7:14 am, Kenton Varda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've read your message a few times now and I have to admit I don't really > understand what you're getting at.  Can you give a small example of each of > the approaches you're considering? Sorry, I was a bit obtuse. I am considering two

Re: separate files per each message type

Thanks Kenton. I got it by now :) Is it written in the docs? If not, it should be. Thanks again - it's a wonderful tool. Cheers, Omer On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Kenton Varda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You would have to define each message in a separate .proto file. > > On Thu, Nov 6,

Re: Interface and Implementation

Hi Jeff, I've read your message a few times now and I have to admit I don't really understand what you're getting at. Can you give a small example of each of the approaches you're considering? On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:06 AM, codeazure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does anyone have any thoughts

Re: separate files per each message type

You would have to define each message in a separate .proto file. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:37 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi guys! > > I'm a new user. > > Can somebody kindly tell me how do I generate classes in separate > files (h' and cpp' files for each message)? > > Thanks! > Omer > > >

separate files per each message type

Hi guys! I'm a new user. Can somebody kindly tell me how do I generate classes in separate files (h’ and cpp’ files for each message)? Thanks! Omer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers"