Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Minor translation patch for citydialog

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Minor translation patch for citydialog

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Mike Kaufman <mkaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Minor translation patch for citydialog
From: "Pieter J. Kersten" <kersten@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:13:10 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Mike Kaufman wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 10:49:00AM +0100, Pieter J. Kersten wrote:
> > In reply on my own mail:
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Pieter J. Kersten wrote:
> >
> > Reasoning in the same line: what about the Oracle wonder? In the current
> > implementation it is never shown, although it clearly affects happiness.
> > Should it show up in the wonders line or in the optional temple
> > improvement or both?
> well, I read the help on the subject (which may not be accurate), and it
> says that the Oracle merely doubles the effect of temples, so it
> wouldn't act like a temple if there isn't one in the city.

So should it be mentioned in any place or not?

> >
> > > > Is what's happening for you? Maybe this isn't intuitive behavior.
> > > > Perhaps it should appear in both places? The relevant code is at
> > > > happiness.c:319
> > > >
> > >
> > > Obviously, for me it is more intuitive to have it at both places :-)
> > >
> >
> > Ok, I've made a patch to show Michelangelo's Chapel as a wonder, but I'm
> > hesitating releasing it because of the 'line wrap hack' in that area.
> > What about that? Why after the second wonder and not after the last?
> This was a semi-arbitrary decision on my part, but it can't go after the
> last. (have all four wonders active and try it to see why) It's to break the 
> line, so your dialog width doesn't get ludicrous. This in my opinion is the 
> way to counteract the bitching that resulted from using gtk_set_line_wrap() 
> (It looks pretty good too, at least for the font I'm using).

See my comment in the source on this hack. I think there remains some work
to do.

> >
> > For the whole function: Can't you make a loop for this? It all seems
> > identical code besides the B_xxx constants. It should make things a lot
> > clearer.
> If you can do it, go for it.

Ok, patch attached.

Just my 2c,
Pieter J. Kersten

Attachment: happiness.c.patch
Description: Text document

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