Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 1999:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Inheritance of fields in rulesets
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Inheritance of fields in rulesets

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Freeciv Dev <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Inheritance of fields in rulesets
From: Artur Biesiadowski <abies@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:18:23 +0200

David Pfitzner wrote:


> > Rest - tech id names (as opposed to displayed names), flags etc would be
> > one word, without any quotes. They would be provided in [] at top of
> > entry. It would also simplify scripting later - because for now
> > units/terrains/techs etc do not have constant id string by which they
> > could be reffered to from scripts.
> 
> Why can't they use the unit name?  Even with i18n, the server will
> store the original (English) name internally and translate on the
> fly (has to, or at least keep English + translated, to send original
> names to client, so client can translate to possibly different lang;
> or in future so server can translate to multiple client langs).
> 
> Or it would be easy enough to use the section names tags instead,
> but I don't see much advantage to motivate a change from current
> system in this regard.


If original names will be kept one reson for it is gone. But this would
also be useful for inheritance - I find

[template air]
...


[unit fighter extends air]
,,,

nicer in look that

[template_air]
Name = "Air"

[unit_fighter extends "Air"]

because, as I've said earlier, "Air" is not game name - it is just tag
and I think it is better to keep non-game strings unqoted.


This way, or another:

Will you accept/apply patch that will change all quoted meta strings to
unquoted (leaving only game strings in quotes or _("")) + introduce
field inheritance + templates + one word name in [] braces ? 

I understand that maybe you do not think that it is necessary, but I
would just feel a lot better, if is same good to you, maybe my way can
be pursued ? :) Anyway, parser needs major rewrite anyway, to handle
templates/inheritance so changing few other things is not a problem.

Do anybody has any more features he wants to see in parser ?

And just in case I would need it (I'm not sure for now). Will bison be
accepted ? Remember you does not need it to compile code - just to
change a parser (shouldn't be done often).

Artur



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