> On 2 Apr 2020, at 23:08, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev > <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote: > > It is common to have a 'catch-all' case for parts or all of the range, which > is Ok if it comes after more specific entries. I'm wondering if its worth > complaining if *part* of an entry is hidden by an earlier one? Current > output from master is as below. I will try to fix them up where I can access > the relevant specs, but wanted to check my understanding of how they work and > how fussy we should be? I will most likely update README.dissector to make > sure it is clear how it is evaluated in order.
Cool stuff. I can definitely see use for catch-all-in-certain-range, opposite of filling every gap with their specifics, which is maintenance heavy. This matches the val_to_string() default string used when no match is found, but then in a higher dimension. I would say let the ranges decide, if their union is the same as the catch-all then it’s okay, otherwise mark it. just my €0.02 Jaap
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
