Skip to content

Conversation

@l46kok
Copy link
Collaborator

@l46kok l46kok commented Jan 23, 2026

Open question on whether to swap the json field name with the proto field name after type-checking in AST representation (best for compatibility, but no longer round trips when unparsed), or to retain the json field name instead, and let the runtime evaluate on both formats.

@l46kok l46kok force-pushed the json-name branch 4 times, most recently from 5e92404 to f75c282 Compare January 30, 2026 00:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant