How about a user redef'able format string for doubles in logs? Even more flexible would be to make it a function. Let the user decide the format they need, and adapt their scripts accordingly, with the default being the current behavior.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Daniel Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/6/17 8:16 AM, Seth Hall wrote: > > Right now, Bro will print scientific notation in JSON logs but we've > > always tended to avoid it in the standard Bro log format. What does > > everyone think about switching to allow scientific notation in the > > standard log format? Daniel recently did some exploration of various > > versions of awk and they all support scientific notation (I think that > > was part of my concern a long time ago). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > .Seth > > Actually, right now Bro uses scientific notation in JSON logs only > for very large values (such as 3.1e+15). For values very close to > zero (such as 1.2e-7), Bro will write "0" to a JSON log. > _______________________________________________ > bro-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev >
_______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
