Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: PATCH: map iteration (PR#1018)

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: PATCH: map iteration (PR#1018)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: PATCH: map iteration (PR#1018)
From: Gaute B Strokkenes <gs234@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 03:21:24 +0000

On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> At 05:17 AM 01/10/30 -0800, jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>4.  Is regular_map_pos_is_normal good, or should we stick to
>>is_normal_map_pos?  Again, regular_map_pos_is_normal provides
>>identical functionality but assumes the map position it is given is
>>"regular", i.e. within (,  This makes
>>it much faster.
> I'm not much of a fan of regular. You need to demonstrate it a bit
> more to show any real value. If it never does anything, then dubious
> dregs like this are just noise.

I agree with Ross.

Until and unless someone exhibits a shape which requires such a
concept, guaranteeing that each tile occurs precisely once in

  [0, map.xsize) x [0, map.ysize)

and using a two nested for loops with is_real_tile() inside offers a
good tradeoff between readability, predictability, efficiency and
generality.  There is not reason to create problems for ourselves
before we have to.

Big Gaute                     
FUN is never having to say you're SUSHI!!

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