Out-of-date Extensions Documentation?

[Chris Morris]

Should the Extensions section in the Language Guide (http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/proto.html#extensions) add SetExtension() as one of the available Extension-related functions? Note that the Extensions section in the C++ Generated Code (http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/reference/cpp-generated.html#extension) does, indeed, have this function.

[Pherl Liu]

The SetExtension() is mentioned in the example. The accessors mentioned in the following paragraph are "similar" to the SetExtension template function.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Chris Morris <chriswi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Should the Extensions section in the Language Guide (http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/proto.html#extensions) add SetExtension() as one of the available Extension-related functions? Note that the Extensions section in the C++ Generated Code (http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/reference/cpp-generated.html#extension) does, indeed, have this function.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/4jPStsKruMYJ.
To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

[Chris Morris]

So should SetExtension() be explicitly listed in the Language Guide, or not? 

[Pherl Liu]

Quote: >>

Foo foo;

foo.SetExtension(bar, 15);

Similarly, the Foo class defines templated accessors HasExtension(), ClearExtension(), GetExtension(), MutableExtension(), and AddExtension().

end quote <<

To re-write the sentence: "Similarly to the SetExtension() mentioned in the above example, the Foo class also defines templated accessors, bla bla bla"

It generally says what else functions the Foo class defines, besides the SetExtension(). It doesn't need to mention SetExtension() again, based on context.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Chris Morris <chriswi...@gmail.com> wrote:

So should SetExtension() be explicitly listed in the Language Guide, or not? 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/cij0Z7Gnvn4J.

[Chris Morris]

Fair enough.