Agree, I'd love to see a ticket for this - and I'd love if it had a patch attached even more.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mark Slee <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this one falls under the category of "reasonable, but currently > unimplemented feature." Not sure if there's a JIRA ticket open for this > (nothing springs to mind). Worth opening one, I don't see any reason not to > support this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Haberman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 1:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: const bug > > Hi, > > We're running an old pre-0.3 thrift and trying upgrade, but running into > a compile error. I've reduce it down to this example: > > struct A { > 1: string name = "" > } > const A DEFAULT_A = {} > struct B { > 1: A a = DEFAULT_A > } > > The problem is that with "a = DEFAULT_A", we get this exception: > > type error: const "a" was declared as struct/xception > > If I remove "= DEFAULT_A", then it works great. > > Just looking at the thrift file, using the DEFAULT_A const as a default > value seems to make sense. Is this a bug, or is it really illegal to use > const structs as default values? > > Thanks, > Stephen > >
