Guy Harris wrote: > Jeff Morriss wrote: > >> What about renaming the current field "frame.time_delta_displayed" and >> name the new one "frame.time_delta"? That changes the current field but >> it sounds a whole lot more intuitive to me. > > Or "delta_displayed" and "delta_captured", which means that any > "frame.time_delta" filter would fail rather than filtering something > different from what it did before the change.
Or, as per my comment in bug 491 (which I've just now recalled): > Another might be to prohibit filtering on this field altogether since it's, > well, kinda illogical. I know now (though I didn't know then) that it is possible to make fields not filterable (by making the filter field an empty string) so what about: - add a new field (with filter "frame.time_delta") which is the time delta to the previous frame in the file - keep the display of the time since the previous displayed packet, but make the field is not filterable ? Normally I'd see the use in not changing semantics for a field, but I don't think the current semantics make any sense at all so I can't imagine it is being used [therefor it's OK to change it]. _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
