Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: new unit flags, 13th version of the patch (PR#1324)

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: new unit flags, 13th version of the patch (PR#1324)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: new unit flags, 13th version of the patch (PR#1324)
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:26:50 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > (server/unittools.c:1825:)
> >
> >     if (iter && ((struct unit*)ITERATOR_PTR((*iter))) == pcargo) {
> >         freelog(LOG_DEBUG, "iterating over %s in wipe_unit_safe",
> >                 unit_name(pcargo->type));
> >         ITERATOR_NEXT((*iter));
> >       }
> >
> > to the code, it can be resolved in a clean way.
> Why isn't cleaning this stuff an option?

It can be cleaned up using triggers... (even though the above code may not
be the best candidate for that.)

> > etc etc
> >
> > What form the events ruleset should take, I don't know yet. I tried to
> > drawn up one after doing the triggers code, but I wasn't really satisfied
> > with it, or I would already have a patch for you *g*
> >
> > I think embedding python to do this might be an idea worth considering.
> > Since events rulesets would be optional, so would python.
> I see.

I take this is as a resounding "yes" to my triggers code? ;)

> However note as a maintainer we have enough open patches
> already. And if you have time for this you don't have enought patches
> assigned to you ;)

I wasn't a maintainer when I wrote this patch... ;)


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