> On Jul 13, 2015, at 9:32 AM, mman...@netscape.net wrote: > > I thought somebody might complain about something like this, but I was more > focused on the Wireshark (packet) context menu, where I was less inclined to > make changes. This however seems like a more valid use case to consider. My > question back would be - what "string" should be used by tshark? The > "display name" can have some undesirable characters in it from a command line > perspective (ie probably require quotes), and the "internal" short name > string isn't otherwise exposed for users to learn what is. > Should the "short name" be exposed on the tabbed dialog so users can learn it > to apply it to a (new) tshark option? >
The short name should be used - it’s likely there will be changes to the long descriptive ones, but we can keep the short one whatever it is so it doesn’t break scripts invoking tshark. But yeah, I do think that means it needs to be shown in the tabbed dialog. Also, at some point tshark’s ‘-G’ should be able to dump the list of names as well. -hadriel ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
