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

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:13:13PM -0400, Daniel L Speyer wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Raimar Falke wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:46:31AM -0400, Daniel L Speyer wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:40:26AM -0400, Daniel L Speyer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > [snip lots of stuff]
> > > > > 
> > > > > > My opinion on the other discussion: In the long term I would also 
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > to see rulesets just as a preset server variables. Each ruleset
> > > > > > variable/server variable/property is protected by a certain 
> > > > > > cmdlevel.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To get structure I would propose a java properties like syntax:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > units.unit_worm_riders.name="Worm Riders"
> > > > > > units.unit_worm_riders.obsolete_by="unit_armorname"
> > > > > > units.unit_worm_riders.attack=6
> > > > > > units.unit_worm_riders.defend=2
> > > > > > units.unit_worm_riders.move=3
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Note: the string "unit_worm_riders" doesn't matter. It can also be
> > > > > > "unit56".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It is easy to understand and parse. It allows arbitrary complex 
> > > > > > nested
> > > > > > structures.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is awfully bulky, especially to be typed in at command line
> > > > > (especially to be typed in at the command line, especially for players
> > > > > without readline).  What about a varient using the javascript (maybe 
> > > > > java
> > > > > too) syntax like this?
> > > > > 
> > > > > with units.worm_riders{
> > > > >       name="Worm Riders"
> > > > >       obsolete_by=armor
> > > > >       attack=6
> > > > >       defend=2
> > > > >       move=3
> > > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > Can this really be typed easier? The java property syntax is perfect
> > > > for just changing some settings. An in addition to this we can add a
> > > > -r command line option to the client.
> > > 
> > > I'd still allow changing a few settings with java syntax, but if you just
> > > want to introduce a new unit, retyping it's name for all its properties
> > > would become a major nuscience, enough to discourage most players (enough
> > > to discourage *me*, at least).  Remember that an actual unit has 23
> > > fields.  I think a full definition of worm_riders would use 17 non-default
> > > settings (using my guesses about defaults and the unit's
> > > properties.)  That's an awful lot to type.
> > 
> > What about a "copy units.settlers units.super_settlers"?
> > 
> 
> This is fine for super_settlers, but for a really new unit it doesn't help
> that much.  For example, a full version of worm_riders using the copy/java
> syntax would be:
> 
> copy units.armor units.worm_riders #it's the closest match I can find
> units.worm_riders.name="Worm Riders"
> units.worm_riders.tech_req=techs.worm_riding
> units.worm_riders.obsolete_by=units.armor
> units.worm_riders.graphic="u.work_riders"
> units.worm_riders.build_cost=50
> units.worm_riders.attack=6
> units.worm_riders.defense=2
> units.worm_riders.hitpoints=20
> units.worm_riders.uk_happy=0
> 
> That's an awful lot, and it could easily be worse.

With a script which a user can feed to the server I see no problem. We
agree in the overall idea. The syntax is secondary and should stop you
from starting.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  "Windows is the one true OS. MS invented the GUI. MS invented 
   the 32 bit OS. MS is open and standard. MS loves you. We have 
   always been at war with Oceana."