--- Guy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephen Fisher wrote: > > > My bad, it does work as I had intended. It highlights the field (with > > the function highlight_field()) whenever you do a hex or string search, > > but not when you do a filter search. Should we add filter search > > matches too? > > I'd say "yes" - if a search pattern of any sort matches a packet because > it matches a particular field in the packet, it should highlight the > matching field regardless of the type of the match. > > That does raise an interesting question - if a pattern matches *more > than one* field in a packet, should "find next" find the next instance > that matches, even if it's in the same packet, or should it find the > next instance in that packet and, if there is no next instance in that > packet, search subsequent packets? There are probably places where the > former is useful and places where the latter is useful.
Why not both? Ctrl-N Find Next Shift-Ctrl-N Find Next packet Yea I know Shift-Ctrl-N is already used, but you get the idea. (How about Meta-Ctrl-N? Is my emacs showing? ;-) -Andrew -Andrew Feren [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
