On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:01:13 -0700, Jaap wrote: > > May I offer a different proposal, based on a former colleague's bug > solving method. Since we have two (three actually) ways of expressing > Not Equal, being "!(...)" and ".. != .." and ".. NE ..", why not drop > support for the ".. != .." (and ".. NE ..") ? > This solution has the following advantages: > * It removes code i.s.o. adding hooks in the grammer.lemon or semcheck.c > or where ever this warning comes from.
very good. > * It shifts the use of the unwanted ".. != .." aways to the desired > "!(..)". ok > * The syntax (error) becomes apparent when editing the expression, not > when applying it. yes. > * We could even keep ".. NE .." around for the power users. Actually, we need it for a lot more than power users. Herein lies the issue: while != and NE may work counterintuitively (at first) for many uses when used with ip.addr and other multiply-occuring fields, they are neceessary and proper for fileds like TTL. It would not be good to get rid of that functionality. > This solution has the following disadvantages: > * It drops an operator where people are used to. Yes. > * Display filter generators may need to be changed > * Color display filters may become invalid. Yes. We'd need or want to build a converter. After the first time I used ip.addr != <something> and the issue was explained, the problem went away for me. Maybe we need a hyperlink "Didn't get what you expected?" after a filter is applied that points one to the issue. Personally, it is no problem to conver the thinking "if no ip address equals 1.2.3.4" to "!ip.addr == 1.2.3.4". --john -- John McDermott, CPLP, CCP Learning and Performance Consultant jjm at jkintl.com www.jkintl.com V: +1 575/377-6293 Please call for fax access. _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
