Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: April 2002:
[freeciv-ai] Re: patches list

[freeciv-ai] Re: patches list

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mike Kaufman <kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: patches list
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:38:23 +0200
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:43:52AM -0700, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > > I believe the igter patch has fixed all issues that Raimar and Greg had. 
> > > No
> > > thumbs up from either one though. Raimar, Greg, do you like the patch?
> > 
> > I have asked Gregory about a detail of the igter patch. No answer yet.
> Why don't you ask me that question? I'll see if I can answer.

It looks like the usage is something like:

     if (unit_flag(punit, F_IGTER)) {
       move_rate *= IGTER_MOVE_BONUS;
     move_time = warmap.cost[x][y] / move_rate;

I get the impression that the new goto interface Gregory and I are
discussing will obsolete the above construct since the goto core will
provide the move_time (in turns). 

So this may mean that the fix should be rejected and the proper change
(replacement of the current interface) should be done. I'm against
this since it may take some time till the new interface is in

But this also means that IGTER_MOVE_BONUS isn't for general use but
very specific to the current goto handling. So at least the config
file of the definition should be changed from unit.h to

It may also be a good forward thinking to replace the above construct
with a macro/function.


 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "That's fundamental game play!  My main enemy is *ALWAYS* fighting 
  a 4-front war.  I make sure of it!"
    -- Tony Stuckey, freeciv-dev

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]