It is common to have a 'catch-all' case for parts or all of the range, which is Ok if it comes after more specific entries. I'm wondering if its worth complaining if *part* of an entry is hidden by an earlier one? Current output from master is as below. I will try to fix them up where I can access the relevant specs, but wanted to check my understanding of how they work and how fussy we should be? I will most likely update README.dissector to make sure it is clear how it is evaluated in order.
Cool stuff. I can definitely see use for catch-all-in-certain-range, opposite of filling every gap with their specifics, which is maintenance heavy. This matches the val_to_string() default string used when no match is found, but then in a higher dimension. I would say let the ranges decide, if their union is the same as the catch-all then it’s okay, otherwise mark it.
just my €0.02 Jaap
|