[Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx>]

Hi List!

When looking into epan/proto.h, I'm often wondering if the 
proto_tree_add_..._hidden() function are a good idea.

Example from epan/proto.h (but the other proto_tree_add_...) look and 
work similar:

proto_tree_add_uint
proto_tree_add_uint_hidden
proto_tree_add_uint_format

The only difference between add_uint and add_uint_hidden is the setting 
of fi->visible = FALSE.

IMHO it would be a lot better to remove the xy_hidden functions 
completely, use the normal one instead, and add a "hidden flag" to the 
FT_... fields (in hf_register_info).

When adding a flag to the FT field like: FT_UINT32 | FT_HIDDEN this 
could do the same thing as the xy_hidden() function above.

This would only make trouble in the case if the proto_field is both used 
for hidden and none hidden fields, but this should be very rarely the case.
Even if it is a case, the specific field info could be duplicated 
without any problems.

In this scheme we could also add other flags like the earlier discussed 
FT_GENERATED without changing the proto API functions, and handle the 
behaviour only in the output rendering.

Regards, ULFL