[sune: Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Flags on demand]

[Sune Kirkeby <sune@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Argh.  I never can remeber to press g(roup reply).
[ Time to redinfe some keybindings ]

-- 
Sune Kirkeby | "Imagine, if you will, that there were no such
             |  thing as a hypothetical situation..."

--- Begin Message ---

To:	Artur Biesiadowski <abies@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Flags on demand
From:	Sune Kirkeby <sune>
Date:	Wed, 15 Sep 1999 18:24:51 +0200

On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 08:09:39PM +0200, Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
> Currently there are some flags in rulesets and surely there will be
> more. All of them have hardcoded meanings. With C code it is maybe ok,
> but with script language we will be limiting ourselves.
> 
> My idea is to allow any flags to be defined. More they should be handled
> transparently to ruleset writer, script writer and even C writer (except
> few interface routines). So there will be no many flag fields, but just
> 

I don't think it's a good idea to go away from hardcoded flags in the
C code, there are simply too many things that can go wrong. Say for
example that some ruleset writer decides that, since he does not use
one of the std. flags at all, he might as well remove it completely
from the ruleset file.  Ooops, now everywhere in the C code that uses
flags, suddenly have to check if it actually exists.

I think it better to keep the hardcoded flags as we have them now, but
add the option of defining new flags, that the C code could ignore.
These could be defined in the ruleset, used by the (possible) scripting
language, and ignored all-together by the existing C code.

(I don't know if this was what you actually meant, but I didn't
understand it that way.  If it infact was, just ignore me :)

-- 
Sune Kirkeby | "Imagine, if you will, that there were no such
             |  thing as a hypothetical situation..."

--- End Message ---