Re: range_string checking

[Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter () xs4all nl>]

> 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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe