[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Corecleanup_07Part1 has been put in incoming

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 05:56:32AM -0400, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> Raimar Falke wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 05:25:39AM -0400, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> > > Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Your comment
> > > > > +  /* FIXME: The GUI uses DIR_DX directions */
> > > > > isn't clear because "DIR_DX" isn't well defined.  How about calling 
> > > > > them
> > > > > "vertical" directions (instead of rotational directions)?  That's what
> > > > > you mean, right?
> > > >
> > > > I removed the comments because it is clear that something which does
> > > > "int x1=x+DIR_DX[dir];" is using DIR_DX directions.
> > >
> > > But it is not immediately clear that that is why adjc_iterate (or
> > > adjc_dir_iterate) cannot be used, and 7-dir must be used instead of
> > > DIR_REVERSE(dir).  Some form of comment is in order.
> > 
> > IMHO adjc_iterate can always be used independent of the underlying
> > direction schema.
> 
> This isn't really an opinion thing...but I agree with you.  I meant just
> adjc_dir_iterate (and perhaps some friends...).
> 
> > I looks like I have missed something about the
> > "7-dir"-vs-"DIR_REVERSE(dir)".  DIR_REVERSE(dir) is currently doing the
> > correct thing.
> 
> Right...but Ross's plan (executed in the later "cleanup" patches, I
> believe) is to replace the current directional system with the
> rotational one.  This would change DIR_REVERSE...but since the GUI must
> still use the vertical schema (for reasons unknown to me) it must keep
> the 7-dir instead.  To me it seems very ugly, but unless everything can
> be made schema-independent (using the macros) something like this may be
> necessary.

Till corecleanup_07b there are no such changes. I will see.

> > You may send a patch which replaces DIR_REVERSE with
> > GUI_DIR_REVERSE.
> 
> Ugh.
> 
> Rather than that, I'd rather have a stopgap measure that converts from
> one directional system to another.  That way one directional system can
> be used and only in necessary places can it be switched.  (Of course,
> one must be careful not to propagate the new value; it must be used and
> discarded.)
>
> Ross, what do you think about this idea?

Exactly one system in the long term!

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!"