Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Probably the best place to encode this information would be PB_HTYPE_*. Sounds
like a change that will require atleast regenerating the .pb.c files.
Can you elaborate why you need to distinguish repeated/required/optional fields
in callbacks programmatically?
Original comment by Petteri.Aimonen
on 21 Jan 2013 at 7:14
I'm planning to use nanopb in a middleware project I'm currently working on. As
I use mixed C/Python code, I would like to implement a Cython-Wrapper generator
for the generated NanoPB structures. When implementing some first ideas I
realized that I could avoid some code duplication if a repeated flag would be
available. Explicitly, I could use a common callback function for all kinds of
callback fields (without assuming that they are all repeated).
However, as my first release will still be using Google's implementation, it is
in no way urgent or important. I hope to get a student assistent soon who
should look further into possibilities for Cython/nanopb usage within my
project.
Original comment by michael....@gmail.com
on 22 Jan 2013 at 8:27
Seems reasonable. I'm not sure how you will implement the wrapper, but adding
that piece of information to the PB_HTYPE is quite easy.
However because it requires regenerating the .pb.c files I'll probably make it
on a separate branch and integrate at some suitable time.. maybe when I run out
of version numbers for 0.1.x :)
Original comment by Petteri.Aimonen
on 23 Jan 2013 at 6:33
Original comment by Petteri.Aimonen
on 7 Feb 2013 at 3:29
This issue was updated by revision 41f98343c8e4.
Original comment by Petteri.Aimonen
on 20 Feb 2013 at 8:57
Fix released in nanopb-0.2.0.
Original comment by Petteri.Aimonen
on 2 Mar 2013 at 2:39
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
michael....@gmail.com
on 21 Jan 2013 at 7:10