Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: generalized unit capabilities
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: generalized unit capabilities

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Andrew Sutton <ansutton@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: generalized unit capabilities
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:11:36 +0100
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:46:05AM -0500, Andrew Sutton wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 December 2001 11:28 am, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 09:26:23AM -0500, Andrew Sutton wrote:
> > > all,
> >
> > Patches please in unified format.
> 
> what kind of format are you looking for?

cvs diff -u
diff -u

> > > here is a patch that provides a patch that extends the flag space of unit
> > > capabilities.
> > >
> > > for lack of anything better to do all the document is in-code using
> > > javadoc (so it will extract nicely :)
> >
> > Doxygen is all nice but still nobody has send a patch to add a make
> > target for this.
> 
> i don't know how :( can somebody who knows how to use autoconf, automake 
> please give me some pointers here?
> 
> anyway, the comments won't hurt the code any.
> 
> > The question is still: why dislike you the flat namespace of the enum?
> > Why do you need more structure?
> 
> what do you mean? it is a flat namespace. it's a hierarchical storage. it 
> just made sense that if you want to inrease flag space for something you move 
> from a single byte field to a mult-byte field. segregating capabilities into 
> category gives a sense of organization and 

> can help prevent flag value collisions for two patches adding a new
> unit capability (e.g. i want a terrorist capability, bob wants a
> build outhouse capability). two flags, two categories, no problem.

patch(1) and the maintainers will catch this.

> besides, when has structure ever been a bad thing :)

It is the same as OO: yes it may be better but I still see no benefit
of the change/problems with the current code.

> > About running out of space for bits for the flags: I agree that this
> > is a problem, but a problem which can be solved in a 100 lines patch.
> 
> that is about 100 lines of code. the bulk of it is comment and #defines. i 
> could strip the comments and push everything into a much more "concise" 
> format if it would make you feel better ;) i bet i could rewrite it to be 
> about 30 lines of code (and submit an entry to the OCCC).

I was thinking that the 100 lines would include comments.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
    -- Arthur C. Clarke


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