[THRIFT-627] should c++ have setters for optional fields?

• Type: Improvement
• Status: Closed
• Priority: Major
• Resolution: Fixed
• Fix Version/s: 0.7
• Component/s: C++ - Compiler

Environment

c++

• Assignee: Jake Farrell
• Reporter: Ben Taitelbaum
• Created: 13/Nov/09 04:00
• Updated: 21/Nov/12 12:56
• Resolved: 24/Jun/11 13:01

Description

It seems non-intuitive to me to have to set __isset.someField = true after setting an optional field someField on a struct. Would it make sense to have a set_someField method that would both set the field and modify __isset?

One of the cases for this is for when a field goes from being required to being optional, and it's easy to forget to set __isset in the code.