[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Elementarization of Unit Properties

[Jörg Zuther <zuther.joerg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On  Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:10:07 +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> - Please don't learn from the AI that "it was hard to code so it should be 
> hard
> to read" ;)

Reminds me of philosophy: "It's hard to read so it must have a deep
sense." ;-)
Don't be afraid, I think I have a strong "tidying" effect on all things
I touch, even code. ;-)

 
> > 1. Elementarization of unit poperties:
> Sounds nice, if you will be able to overtalk the AI. And obviously if you will
> be able to get this patch into CVS. Also it would be nice if you would first
> clean up the parts you are going to change, get this in as a separate patch 
> and
> then submit the main patch itself.

OK!


> >    There's a patch from Gregor Zeitlinger splitting F_CARAVAN into the two
> >    elemental abilities.
> Yes - so, as a start, can you please have a deeper look at it and try to get 
> it
> into CVS?

I'll try my best. But there were a lot of answers on my mail that
teach me that it would be better to do little more research and
discussion before doing too much and running into a dead end.

 
> >    I have begun with the F_SETTLERS split but encountered many difficulties
> >    in the AI and elsewhere. For example, it seems that best_role_unit in
> >    unittype.c needs an overhaul so that it can test any combination of
> >    required properties/abilities of a unit. I fear that this patch could 
> > grow
> >    huge. Maybe it would be better first to analyse the necessary changes for
> >    the split patch and to put those changes into a set of other patches
> >    first, and make the split patch at last?
> Smallest patches, best patches (in the scale of size, not quality - size helps
> while reviewing; don't want to start this once again ;)

OK!


> >    Furthermore, has anyone made major changes to unittype.c?  It is very
> >    likely that my patch would affect these changes in a nontrivial way. How
> >    should this be handled? Building my patch onto existing but still not
> >    included ones? Or do it on the basis of the current version?
> If there's actually something which would help you, reactivate it, clean it 
> up,
> fix it, discuss about it and just try to get it into CVS. We have some good
> patches, which didn't get into CVS just because lack of interest (so no 
> reviews
> etc).

Hm... as most of you I wish my time wouldn't be so limited... :-(


> > 2. New or more detailed charts:
> >    Overall, it seems to me that it this subject is much easier
> >    to patch than the first one.
> Sure. Maybe you would want to start with this, to get more familiar with the
> code first.

Probably you're right. I'll decide after I have gathered more
information about the two subjects.

 ,,
Jorg