[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Server/ruleset unification [Was [RFC PATCH] init_techs]

[Justin Moore <justin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > > create tech atomic_theory
> > >   name     = _("Atomic Theory"),
> > >   req1     = "Theory of Gravity",
> > >   req2     = "Physics",
> > >   flags    = "";
> > >
> > > becomes:
> > >
> > > create tech.atomic_theory;
> > > set tech.atomic_theory.name _("Atomic Theory");
> > > set tech.atomic_theory.req1 = "Theory of Gravity";
> > > [etc.]
> > >
> > > The complex syntax is nicer to read, IMHO, but it may be desirable to go 
> > > with
> > > the simpler syntax.
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > create tech atomic_theory
> > with tech atomic_theoury
> > set name _("Atomic Theory")
> > set req1 "Theory of Gravity"
> > set req2 "Physics"
> > endwith
> >
> > This is almost as brief as the brief form above, and is more general,
> > while still meeting the general command syntax.  It could be compressed by
> > combining the first two lines (maybe with braces?) or by changing the
> > TI-EOS-like endwith to a bashish htiw.
>
> Well...
> Why not do it like this:
>
> create tech.atomic_theory (name="Atomic Theory",
> req1="Theory of Gravity",req2="Physics");
>
> can also be written as
>
> create tech.atomic_theory (
>       name="Atomic Theory",
>       req1="Theory of Gravity",
>       req2="Physics");
>
> That seems very natural to me...

   I was wondering how long it would be before we re-invented MySQL client
app syntax. :) ATM I'm just in favor of getting a decent parsing structure
in place.  We can worry about the nitpicky semantics later (or you can
debate them now, I'll just code other stuff :)).

Ack.  You know you're up late when the people in Europe start getting up
and dealing with their morning backlog of e-mail ...
-jdm

"You don't give blood then take it back again
 We're all deserving of something more"
 - "Grievance"

Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
Email:  justin@xxxxxxxxxxx