Joshua Haberman
Joshua Haberman
Hi @h-vetinari, I created https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/pull/17207. Give it a spin and see if it works for you. To build the Python source package as we distribute it, you can run this...
> In any case, that PR looks like it didn't get merged, it should probably be revived? I've refreshed it in https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/pull/18467. If it helps your use case, I can...
> Hey @haberman, sorry for the long delay, the forced switch to protobuf really did a number on us... Which switch do you mean? I don't think I quite understand...
The PR is kept open if there are any comments on the issue. It's to gauge whether there is still interest from the author. I'll reopen this one.
Hi @bshaffer , can you confirm an answer to my most recent question above? > Ok sounds good, yes let's remove RepeatedField in getters and setters. If we use type[]...
It looks like the PR is still using `RepeatedField`. Can you update it to use `type[]` instead?
What about `ArrayAccess`? That seems like the most accurate type to return.
It might be possible to add this functionality. However there are a couple major constraints based on how we use protobuf JavaScript inside Google: 1. when using an optimizing JavaScript...
For (1): yes, exactly. Closure Compiler is what we use internally at Google. For (2): ideally we would stay away from generator options. It's cleaner if we can just generate...
> If Protobuf JS supports Any, then all of this must already be supported under the covers. By "all of this" I assume you mean descriptors and other metadata. The...