Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Changing interface for generate_warmap (PR#1108)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Changing interface for generate_warmap (PR#1108)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Changing interface for generate_warmap (PR#1108)
From: Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:10:33 +0000 (GMT)

 --- Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 05:40:55PM +0000, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > > From the first email:
> > > 
> > > > Functions like find_the_shortest_paths use local warmap by
> default
> > > > (which renders it unrecyclable).
> > > 
> > > I don't see this.
> > 
> > What exactly is your question?
> 
> I did a 
>   $ grep get_warmap_sea local_warmap131201.diff |grep -v NULL
> and got no real hits.

Oops, I see, sorry.  My mistake.
I meant it uses "default" warmap by default.

> > > +void generate_warmap(struct move_cost_map *wm, int x, int y,
> > > +                    struct unit *punit);
> > > +int get_warmap_land(struct move_cost_map *wm, int x, int y);
> > > +int get_warmap_sea(struct move_cost_map *wm, int x, int y);
> > > 
> > > What do you think about:
> > > 
> > >   struct move_cost_map *generate_warmap(int x, int y, struct unit
> > >                                         *punit, int
> use_global_warmap);
> > > 
> > > This way the access calls doesn't need to be changed if you use a
> > > local warmap.
> > 
> > True.  But I thought changing access calls is a good thing.  At least
> for
> > testing: I suspect in few instances a wrong warmap is used.
> > 
> > You asked for incapsulation, didn't you?
> 
> You introduce access calls with this patch. You want to change all
> accesses in a later patch another time?

What do you mean by "all accesses"?
I changed all accesses there were, apart from those from within
gotohand.c in warmap-generating functions like really_generate_warmap,
find_the_shortest_path and air_something...

Maybe I missed some, but they are in gotohand.c

> 
> So the question is: will this patch gets included if there are is no
> global warmap anymore? (good but _maybe_ unrealistic for the next
> time) Or will it get included if there is still a mix? (than I don't
> want another big useless patch)

Maybe I am just tired, but I have problems understanding you.  Sorry.
Maybe you can explain your questions in easier terms?

No "default" warmap is a jump too big for now.
There is a lot of confusion in the code now, with functions generating
warmap being few calls away from the functions using it etc.

G.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


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