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

["Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:03 PM 01/08/02 +0200, Thue wrote:
>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

With some minor additions to Jason's scheme, I think that is a great way to
go.

If it will pass the hurdle of getting added to CVS at some point, I think
there are at least two people that would actively move this forward now :-).

Cheers,
RossW