[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Reproducable core dump (PR#1051)

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 09:10:56AM -0800, jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Raimar Falke wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 11:16:06AM -0800, jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >>My current implementation isn't completely minimalist: it will refuse to 
> >>fly through unknown tiles but will happily fly through known, fogged 
> >>tiles assuming no enemy is there.  Is this wise?  Really, a fogged tile 
> >>is just as likely to contain an enemy as an unknown tile.
> >>
> > 
> > A nice goal may be to have this behavior changeable by function
> > arguments.
> 
> 
> That would be easy enough to do, but on further reflection I'm not sure 
> that it's necessary.
> 
> Fogged tiles and unknown tiles are practically the same - both may or 
> may not contain an enemy unit.  So we would pass in a parameter to 
> decide whether we can fly through unseen tiles at all.  The problem with 
> this is that restricting a plane to only "seen" tiles probably won't get 
> it very far!
> 
> We could come up with more complex logic - for instance, ocean squares 
> are less likely to contain an enemy unit than land squares, so we could 
> refuse to fly through any known/unseen land square but happily fly 
> through a similar ocean square.  Under this reasoning, unknown tiles are 
> different from known fogged ones.
> 
> I'm really not sure what's best here.  If we do allow parameters, what 
> should they be?

...,int use_unseen_tiles, int use_fogged_tiles, 
    int unseen_extra_cost, int fogged_extra_cost,
....

First two are booleans. The latter make a patch over such a tile more
costly.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Are you saying that you actually used the Classpath Java AWT classes in 
  addition to the GTK peers and got them to display something?
  Wow.  That's way better than I did and I wrote the code!"
    -- Aaron M. Renn in the classpath mailing list