|
Pascal Quantin skrev 2012-09-26 19:41:
2012/9/25 Lucio Di Giovannantonio <lucio.digiovannantonio@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi pascal, thank you for your resply, maybe "container"
could be better?
Regards
Lucio
Hi Lucio,
thanks for your suggestion, I like it. I will wait a few days
to see if someone suggests a better wording (or a better
approach than my patch proposal in bug 2402 comment 10) and
then commit it.
Regards,
Pascal.
For fields like this
{ &hf_rrc_dl_UM_RLC_Mode_01,
{ "dl-UM-RLC-Mode", "rrc.dl_UM_RLC_Mode",
FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
"DL_UM_RLC_Mode_r5", HFILL }},
{ &hf_rrc_dl_UM_RLC_Mode_02,
{ "dl-UM-RLC-Mode", "rrc.dl_UM_RLC_Mode",
FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
"DL_UM_RLC_Mode_r6", HFILL }},
Using the blurb or dl_UM_RLC_Mode_01 should be better than the
current scheme.
Regards
Anders
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
|
