Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Add BOOL_VAL around ANDs
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Add BOOL_VAL around ANDs

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Add BOOL_VAL around ANDs
From: Vasco Alexandre Da Silva Costa <vasc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:05:57 +0000 (WET)

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:

>  --- Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 01:37:10PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> [...]
> > > Hmm, I would like tile_has_special() much more that BOOL_VAL(..). It
> > fixes the
> > > boolean issue _and_ raises the level of encapsulation, which is good.
> > 
> > I have no problem introducing contains_special. Petr, Gregory?
> 
> What Gregory?
> You know my opinion: if you are doing BOOL_VAL, than do it properly in a
> function/macro.
> 
> As for the patch which is already in, well, if you are looking for
> people's opinions maybe you should give us a reasonable time to react. 
> And if you are not, then you might as well put your patch straight in
> without bothering to mail it to the list.  Just like Vasc does it.  Which
> annoys me even more than your formal "submitting a patch".

Jeez thanks. I guess that's why i didn't post the tilespec.c patch here to
the mailing-list before commiting and even ended up revising it to
eliminate SAFE_MAPSTEP(). But yes, i don't always mail stuff to the
mailing-list.

And sometimes i should. But i don't feel like issues of detail like bug-fixing
or removing compiler warnings warrant such things.

> But then you are maintainers, you are gods, so what the hell.

Noone is god here. We can all make mistakes. That's why we use CVS ;-)

---
Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa @ Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisboa






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