[Freeciv-Dev] Re: generalized unit capabilities

[Jason Short <vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Sutton wrote:


> people have been talking about the desire for generalized unit capabilities 
> for a while now. you yourself admitted that it was a shortcoming - if not 
> immediately, then eventually. now you say that there's no benefit? this is 
> just an additive patch. it won't affect any part of the game that chooses not 
> to use it...
> anybody else have any thoughts?
I really don't know much about this topic; given that, your system seems 
much cooler than Raimar's but I don't think it's needed (yet).
Here are some technical comments on the patch.


> Index: common/registry.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/freeciv/CVS/freeciv/common/registry.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.34
> diff -u -r1.34 registry.c
> --- common/registry.c   2001/08/13 15:13:35     1.34
> +++ common/registry.c   2001/12/05 17:33:14
> @@ -717,13 +717,13 @@
>    if(!(pentry=section_file_lookup_internal(my_section_file, buf))) {
>      freelog(LOG_FATAL, "sectionfile %s doesn't contain a '%s' entry",
>             secfile_filename(my_section_file), buf);
> -    exit(1);
> +    exit(0);
>    }
>  
>    if(!pentry->svalue) {
>      freelog(LOG_FATAL, "sectionfile %s entry '%s' doesn't contain a string",
>             secfile_filename(my_section_file), buf);
> -    exit(1);
> +    exit(0);
>    }
What is the purpose of this change?


> -struct unit_type unit_types[U_LAST];
> -/* the unit_types array is now setup in:
> -   server/ruleset.c (for the server)
> -   client/packhand.c (for the client)
> +/**
> + * The unit_types array is now setup in:
> + * <ul>
> + * <li> \e server - server/ruleset.c
> + * <li> \e client - client/packhand.c
> + * </ul>
>  */
I assume the HTML is so that doxygen can parse it.  This is not 
necessary.  IIRC a comment of the form
/**
 * The unit_types array is now set up in:
 *   - server - server/ruleset.c
 *   - client - client/packhand.c
 */

will have a similar effect.  Read the doxygen documentation for more 
about this.

> +/*@
Why use /** in some places and /*@ in others?  Personally, I prefer /** 
and /**<, but this is a question for the style guide (AFTER doxygen is 
adopted).
jason