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: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>, Mike Kaufman <kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: patches list
From: Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:43:19 +0100 (BST)

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Raimar Falke wrote:

> 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
> place. 

I agree.  New interface is a lengthy issue and then converting old code to 
use it will take a loooong time.

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

Yes, would be good.


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