Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: normalize_map_pos and invalid map positions

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: normalize_map_pos and invalid map positions

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: normalize_map_pos and invalid map positions
From: Mike Kaufman <kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:25:20 -0500

On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 06:04:36PM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> Ok, this is probably a stupid question, but anyway.
> I take it the point of normalize_map_pos is to ensure the given map
> positions don't point to an illegal point on the map that would case an
> error.
> However, sometimes, as with goto_dest_?, I believe the correct thing to do
> is to make the positions illegal, so that they don't get used and if they
> get used, an error is generated so that the problem can be fixed.
> So what would be an illegal map position? (-1, -1)?

urk, -1,-1 is (will be) a valid position. (at least that's my
understanding of the whole thing...)
The solution should be to add an illegal position bit?

example: a unit at (0,0) is ordered to move "northwest" by:
a) the server (by proxy of the ai)
b) a remote client.

What should ideally happen in a general topological framework?

Jason, Ross, could we have a consensus on this particular point, devoid of
any other considerations? If other considerations, what do they need to be?


> Yeah, I guess this question shows just how well I've been following the
> gen topology discussion...
> Yours
> Per

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