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>
Cc: Sebastian Bauer <sebauer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3
From: Karl-Ingo Friese <kif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:03:54 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Jules Bean wrote:

> How would making rulesets all be server variables be at all different
> from making server variables all ruleset variables? Sounds to me like
> exactly the same thing...

Hmm ... maybe I misunderstood you then ;) The point is: right now we
have a fixed number of options that can be altered at runtime via
server settings and a few others who for-whatever-reasons have to
via ruleset at server starting time. This is a) confusing and b)
unnessary. I like the server variable syntax (mainly because I often
work with them and almost never with rulesets). The best solution
in my eyes would be that a ruleset would have the same syntax as
if you would change the variables at runtime (thats what I meant
with "make all rulsettings server variables"). So a ruleset that
sets citymindist to 3 would contain a line

   set researchcost 20
 > set citymindist 3
   set techpenalty 50

In this understanding, what is now called a "ruleset" would be
considered nothing else but a "preset of server options".

> I don't think you totally disagree with me at all.  I think you
> absolutely agree, you just walked there from the other direction.

I hope I made myself more clear now.



Karl-Ingo Friese

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