[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] MAPSTEP

[Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 --- "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

> Actually, a "get the (x,y) delta for direction dir" is not a bad
> change. It forces you to hand in all the coordinates (in 2-D) and
> returns a full 2-D result which is needed for isometric and a few
> other cases. 

I must loudly disagree with you here.  (x,y) delta still has x-component
and y-component and is still additive as long as the surface you are
playing on is locally R^2 (planar).  And DIRSTEP explecitly returns these
separate components and then they are explicitly used in GUI code.  So I
think you are fooling yourself here.

I also think that DIR_D[XY] should be retained but for use in GUI only. 
Although it's too late now, which is another issue.

However I must say DIRSTEP is a much better name.


> Doing x and y individually is actually a problem for a generalization
> effort.
> 
> My only concern is this munges the core and GUI directions systems
> into a single whole, and the use in the GUI vs in the core is not
> really the same. The GUI stuff is fitting things into a window, the
> core playing on a game map, and the two are really not the same in
> many cases (windows have fixed boundaries, game maps may not, 
> windows are going to be rectangular, the game map might be a quite
> different system :-). 
> 
> But we are still fighting the "elegance" and "symmetry" argument 
> against the practical understanding of what it is doing battle here.
> 
> Cheers,
> RossW
> =====
> 
> At 02:31 PM 01/09/23 +0100, you wrote:
> > --- Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> >> On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 01:13:05PM +0100, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> >[...]
> >> > However I strongly object to your use of _MAPSTEP because:
> >> > 1. It obscures the code.
> >> > 2. It is unnecessary.
> >> > 3. It's got bad name (MAPSTEP_FROM_0 would be better if you insist
> on
> >> > using it).
> >> 
> >> I introduced it for the case you mentioned below. You may have a way
> >> to express this without an extra macro besides MAPSTEP.
> >
> >Errr, actually my complaint was about you use of _MAPSTEP exactly in
> the
> >case mentioned below.  Why do you want to get rid of DIR_D[XY] ?
> >They've got good name, it's transperent what it does etc.
> >I don't think you are making code any more readable/general by using
> this
> >ugly _MAPSTEP.
> >
> >> @@ -2083,8 +2067,9 @@
> >>    get_canvas_xy(x, y, &canvas_src_x, &canvas_src_y);
> >>    canvas_src_x += NORMAL_TILE_WIDTH/2;
> >>    canvas_src_y += NORMAL_TILE_HEIGHT/2;
> >> -  canvas_dest_x = canvas_src_x + (NORMAL_TILE_WIDTH *
> DIR_DX[dir])/2;
> >> -  canvas_dest_y = canvas_src_y + (NORMAL_TILE_WIDTH *
> DIR_DY[dir])/2;
> >> +  _MAPSTEP(canvas_dest_x, canvas_dest_y, dir);
> >> +  canvas_dest_x = canvas_src_x + (NORMAL_TILE_WIDTH *
> >canvas_dest_x)/2;
> >
> >Best,
> >G.
> >____________________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> >or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
> 
>  

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie