Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] is_normal_tile function
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] is_normal_tile function

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] is_normal_tile function
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:02:18 +0200
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 09:58:37PM +0100, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
>  --- Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15,
> 2001 at 09:41:17PM +0100, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > >  --- Jason Dorje Short <jshort@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> > > > +***************************************************************/
> > > > +int is_normal_tile(int x, int y)
> > > > +{
> > > > +  return 0 <= y && y < map.ysize && 0 <= x && x < map.xsize;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > you might want to use Ross' geeky way of writing such things:
> > > 
> > > return ((unsigned) y < (unsigned) map.ysize) && (....)
> > > 
> > > or am I as usual missing something?
> > 
> > It is interesting to see that even a simple function can be
> > obfuscated.
> 
> I don't like it either but since it's virtually everywhere in Ross' patch
> and I'm sure it's going to be accepted sooner or later, maybe things
> should be more uniform?

I haven't looked at Ross' patch but I hope the patch didn't get
accepted containing constructs like the above.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot."


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