+1 for the double dot

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Jasper Bongertz <jas...@packet-foo.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> +1 for the double dot syntax.
>
> Cheers,
> Jasper
>
>
> Sunday, April 15, 2018, 3:03:53 PM, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *> Hi, > In fact I would suggest to consider double dot (‘..’) in this
> case. > Reasons: > * It is a sufficiently unique operator > * The minus
> causes too many conflicts, as you have stated > * triple dot (‘...’, i.e.
> Ellipsis) is too prone to > ‘autocorrection’ to the ellipsis symbol,
> causing copy-paste problems. > Regards, > Jaap >> On 15 Apr 2018, at 13:24,
> Peter Wu <*
> pe...@lekensteyn.nl
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *> wrote: >> Hi, >> Laura requested support for ranges for the "in"
> display filter operator >> in bug 1480 which seems like a reasonable idea.
> I have a prototype patch >> working here: *https://code.wireshark.org/
> review/26945
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *>> The initial implementation converted "f in {a-b}" to "f >= a && f <=
> b", >> but this turned out to be problematic when a field has multiple >>
> occurrences. To solve this, I added a new ANY_IN_RANGE DVFM instruction >>
> that checks each field against the range. >> One remaining issue is the
> syntax. The proposed syntax looks a bit ugly >> with negative numbers, and
> is also not implemented for things other than >> numbers. It can also be
> ambiguous. >> Example: find SMB server timezone within UTC-0700 and
> UTC-0400): >>    smb.server_timezone in {-420--240} >> Example: find all
> hosts in range 10.0.0.10-10.0.0.60. The CIDR notation >> cannot be used to
> match this, instead you need something verbose like: >>    (ip.src >=
> 10.0.0.10 and ip.src <= 10.0.0.60) or >>    (ip.dst >= 10.0.0.10 and ip.dst
> <= 10.0.0.60) >> A potential shorter version (not supported at the moment):
> >>    ip.addr in {10.0.0.10-10.0.0.60} >> Another issue: the filter
> "data.data==1-3" is interpreted as matching >> bytes "0103" (because
> data.data is of type FT_BYTES). The display filter >> "data.data in {1-3}"
> is currently ambiguous (previously it matched the >> previous "==" filter,
> after my patch it becomes "a single byte in range >> 01 to 03"). One way to
> address this is to treat only "01:02:03" as byte >> patterns and forbid
> "01-02-03". >> With these cases, do you think that using "-" is a good
> range operator >> for the set membership operator? An alternative range
> syntax suggestion >> was proposed in doc/README.display_filter as: >>    (x
> in {a ... z}) >> Some possible ideas (I don't really like them to be
> honest): >>    tcp.srcport in { 80 1662 ... 1664 } >>    tcp.srcport in {
> 80 1662 .. 1664 } >>    tcp.srcport in { 80 [1662, 1664] } >>
>  tcp.srcport in { 80 range(1662, 1664) } >> Feedback is welcome! >> -- >>
> Kind regards, >> Peter Wu *>> https://lekensteyn.nl
> <https://lekensteyn.nl>
>
>
> *>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> > 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 <wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> _______________
> 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
>
___________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to