Richard van der Hoff wrote:
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
I think, however, that before you spend too much more time on this,
somebody ought to review what you've done so far to check that we're all
on the same page with respect to what are good changes. It would be a
shame if you spent weeks on it and we had to say "uh, no, you've got the
wrong idea."
Apart from anything else, if we go and change half of the dissector
fields, is that going to upset people who are used to the old names?
Maybe, but I'd say correctness is better (think of the new users over
the next N years who might find the field easier or find it more
intuitive). (I say that even though I haven't looked at what the actual
changes are...)