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

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

At 11:47 AM 01/08/26 +0200, 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. I looks like I have missed something about the
>"7-dir"-vs-"DIR_REVERSE(dir)". DIR_REVERSE(dir) is currently doing the
>correct thing. You may send a patch which replaces DIR_REVERSE with
>GUI_DIR_REVERSE. However in the long term we still want one direction
>schema.

Yes you have and you should leave this alone :-). There has been enough
discussion to fill you in if you look back over the mail with a better
appreciation that this is a problem area.

The GUI currently has its own hardwired direction system that has not been
and should not be merged with the adjacent and standardizing core system
until the GUI problems are fixed.

DIR_REVERSE mistakenly started linking these things. You need to do it
right everywhere or not at all.

I vote strongly to leave this alone until the first set of corecleanups
are in and available for use and testing.

>       Raimar
>
>-- 
> email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  This customer comes into the computer store. "I'm looking for a mystery
>  Adventure Game with lots of graphics. You know, something realy
>  challenging". "Well," replied the clerk, "have you tried Windows 98 ?"
>
>