[Freeciv-Dev] Re: map_adjust_x (was: Profiling Civserver again)

[Thue <thue@xxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 02 August 2001 19:56, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> Mike Kaufman wrote:
> > [someone unknown (Thue?) wrote:]
> >
> > > True, you could check all uses. But to limit map_adjust_x like
> > > this would just make it into a minefield for programmers. Then
> > > rather have freeciv run a little bit slower IMO.
> >
> > I can agree with the possible end result: if the general consensus
> > is that safer is better, then no problem. But I don't agree with
> > the particular reasoning. map_adjust_x() is like any other function
> > or macro. If a programmer wants to use it, then he had better know
> > what it's going to do. If that takes documenting the code, so be
> > it. map_adjust_x() is not a safety net. It ought to exist primarily
> > because our game happens to wrap around in the x direction. Input,
> > by design, will go a bit out of bounds.
>
> I think this would be an ideal time to make a point I've noticed
> recently.
>
> Under an arbitrary wrapping scheme, map_adjust_x and map_adjust_y
> will not work.  The X and Y coordinates must be normalized together.
> Consider the isometric map mentioned recently - you *can't* wrap X
> without knowing Y.  Just a situation in which there were three
> different possible wrapping types would make using map_adjust_x and
> map_adjust_y macros for this very ugly.
>
> My conclusion?  We should stop wasting time worrying about
> map_adjust_x (although it is interesting discussion).  After Monday
> (or whenever 1.12.0 is released), a campaign to stomp out the usage
> of map_adjust_x and map_adjust_y should be instituted.  They should
> all be replaced by normalize_map_pos.  No piece of code should wrap
> manually.  The adjc_***_iterate macros should use a function
> is_border_tile (or is_border_map_pos) to determine whether
> normalization is necessary, and use normalize_map_pos in that
> situation.
>
> jason

Actually I have been running that campain for half a year already :P

-Thue