Thanks Bill.
I was concerned there was something I was missing.
I understand its a lot of work to go through other peoples varying styles of code.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks again.
--
Michael Lum (michael.lum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) | STAR SOLUTIONS | Principal Software Engineer
4600 Jacombs Road, Richmond BC, Canada V6V 3B1 | +1.604.303.2315
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Meier
> Sent: November 22, 2013 11:34 AM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark coding style help
>
> On 11/21/2013 8:05 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Michael Lum
> > <michael.lum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Can someone tell me why code like this:
> >>
> >> i++;
> >>
> >> would have been changed to this:
> >>
> >> i += 1;
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > If the code in question is stepping through a packet, and "i" is
> > actually "offset" or some such variable holding the offset into the
> > packet, and other code is doing "offset += 2" or "offset +=
> 4", people
> > might have used "offset += 1" to make the style more
> consistent and to
> > put the field length into all the incrementing lines of code.
> >
>
> You may be referring to one or more changes I made. :)
>
> As Guy suggested, for consistency I tend to change 'offset++'
> to 'offset
> += 1'.
>
> It does appear that I changed 'i++;' to 'i += 1;' in a few instances.
> I must have been a bit over enthusiastic in those cases since
> there's no real reason for that change.
>
> Bill
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _____________
> 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
>
