Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Cleanup can_establish_trade_route
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Cleanup can_establish_trade_route

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Freeciv-Dev" <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Cleanup can_establish_trade_route
From: "Jonathan Claggett" <jcc.ugm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:07:18 -0500

>From: Raimar Falke [mailto:hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
>On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:25:27PM -0500, Jason Short wrote:
>> Raimar Falke wrote:
>> > The original implementation used an hack (which made
>splint unhappy)
>> > to test for existing traderoutes. The new version is cleaner.
>> >
>> > Please review.
>> I agree with Gregory - this is a significant improvement.
>>
>> Instead of tracking used1 and used2, why not track free1 and
>free2 (the
>> number of free trade slots)?  Then the constant "4"
>(MAX_NUM_TRADEROUTS)
>>   will have less of an effect.
>
>So this will reduce the occurrence of "4" from 3 to 1?!

I don't think so since free1 and free2 would still need to be initialized to
"4" at some point. More practically, another place that would use the
MAX_NUM_TRADEROUTES would be in the city.h code below:

223   /* trade routes */
224   int trade[4],trade_value[4];


And speaking of #defines, if the "4" is replaced then the "8" ought to be
replaced with MIN_DIST_TRADEROUTE (or is this too anal? :-).

Jonathan



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