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

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

At 12:34 PM 01/08/26 +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 05:56:32AM -0400, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
>> Raimar Falke wrote:
[...]
>> 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.

I'm beginning to regret not landing all over this one when it first went
in. I had assumed people would pickup on the change and reason when they 
were reversed later, and arguing it at the time would have been talking
to a deaf mule. :-)
 
>> 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.

Just leave the GUI in its original form. Or put it back that way. It was
self-contained and safe then, and still will be if you don't muck it up.
 
>> 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?

Just leave the GUI in its original form. Or put it back that way. It was
self-contained and safe then, and still will be if you don't muck it up.
 
>Exactly one system in the long term!

Everyone is agreed on this. The argument is over task scheduling and 
linkage, i.e. how complicated and messy you want to make the process.

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

Cheers,
RossW