Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Jules Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3
From: Bert Buchholz <bertbuchholz@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:44:56 +0200

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 02:31:29PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:12:33PM +0200, Bert Buchholz wrote:
> > No, but really, why? Of course I'm willing to change it, but not w/o
> > reason. Probably there is a good reason, but I'd like to know why I do
> > stuff.
> Why?  Because it's exactly the sort of thing you'd want to change in
> custom rulesets.

Hmm, yes of course, but that doesn't answer the why. Why does this
belong into a ruleset and not changeable by the server commandline. For
me, this wasn't obvious, as you explain in the next paragraph, that the
"dichotomoy" (I suppose, it means something like difference? Man, I had
4 years of old-greek in school, and don't know this word... shame ocer
me ;-) "between ruleset parameters and server variables is becoming
harder and harder to understand". I don't understand them really. But
okay, I will change this.

> On the subject: the dichotomoy between ruleset parameters and server
> variables is becoming harder and harder to understand. A radical
> solution: make them *all* ruleset variables, and permit ruleset
> variables to be altered from the server commandline. (These
> alterations wouldn't be written out to the ruleset files, it would
> just be a way of having custom games).

(partially quoted above)


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