Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] unit_flag
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] unit_flag

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] unit_flag
From: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 19:20:58 -0400

This doesn't appear to make much sense.

First you take out a generic existing function, then you replace it
with one of limited specific specific utility, then you put back the
generic function with a different name.

Create a new name for the new function at least and don't modify any
more code than is necessary to implement this.

But I still think you are making unnecessary changes in this case to 
something that will be removed (or certainly should be) when you do
the real change that you for some reason don't want to commit to yet.

This whole effort is looking like a major waste of not only your time
but everyone else's that needs to resync to these changes, and then
resync again when they are removed.

At 06:36 PM 01/09/12 +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
>
>The starting point of the attached patch are these changes:
>
>-int unit_flag(Unit_Type_id id, int flag);
>+int unit_flag(struct unit *punit, enum unit_flag_id flag);
>+int unit_type_flag(Unit_Type_id id, int flag);
>
>The method unit_flag is used 210 times. The method unit_type_flag is
>used 62 times.
>
>Objections?
>
>       Raimar
>
>-- 
> email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "I was dead ... but I'm better now."
>    -- Capitain Sheridan in Babylon 5
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\unit_flag1.diff.gz"

Cheers,
RossW
=====




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