mirror of
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf-go.git
synced 2025-01-01 11:58:21 +00:00
381f04c102
Considerable thought was given to whether a seperate ExtensionRanges interface should be made that encapsulates FieldNumbers with an Options method. However, I decided against this design for the following reasons: * Extension ranges share syntax with reserved numbers and fields. Why is extension ranges so special that it can have options, while the other two currently do not? How do we know that those other two won't grow options in the future? If they do, then those APIs can be expanded in the same way as how extension range options is being expanded here today. * Extension range options stand out like a sore thumb compared to the other eight options. The other options correspond with a named declaration and have a full protobuf name that they are associated with. Extension range options is the only options that is not correlated with a full name. * Extension range options are an extremely rarely used feature and it seems unfortunate complicating the common case with additional structure. Change-Id: Ib284a0b798c57dc264febe304692eee5b9c8e91b Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/153018 Reviewed-by: Damien Neil <dneil@google.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| cmd | ||
| detrand | ||
| encoding | ||
| errors | ||
| flags | ||
| impl | ||
| legacy | ||
| pragma | ||
| protogen/goldentest | ||
| scalar | ||
| set | ||
| testprotos/legacy | ||
| typefmt | ||
| value | ||