Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 1539] Applying filter for signed integer (FT_INT32) hf_ en
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1539
--- Comment #7 from Josh Moore <jmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-05-22 07:24:35 PDT ---
> In Wireshark the representations are prepared using standard printf-style
> formatting: %x for hex and %d for decimal. %x is unsigned. It doesn't really
> make sense to display signed things in unsigned.
To me, the whole point of displaying the hexadecimal value (of either a signed
or unsigned number) is to display the unsigned byte values that represent the
number in an easy-to-read format. I suppose other developers would have other
uses of the hexadecimal format.
> I seriously contemplated
> leaving BASE_DEC_HEX alone but when I discovered that no dissector (in the
> source tree) was using it on a signed number I took it out for consistency.
> This sounds like a special case to me and I'm tempted to leave it as such
> (where you can use the *_format() routine to display it as you want it). I
> think the cost of doing that is outweighed by the benefit of keeping
> developers straight about the signedness of their fields.
I think I can live with that. With no other developers using signed values, I
agree that my usage is a special case. Then, it is reasonable for my special
case to warrant having me having to use a special workaround instead of the
normal BASE_DEC_HEX designation.
Thanks for your contributions to this project, and your good explanation of the
reasons behind eliminating the usage of hexadecimal output for signed numbers.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
