[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] [RFC] Path finding version 14

[Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Raimar Falke wrote:

> > > > > I don't understand:
> > > > > 
> > > > > void pf_next_get_position(pf_map_t pf_map, struct pf_position *pos)
> > > > > {
> > > > >   assert(pf_map->last_pos_is_valid);
> > > > >   memcpy(pos, &pf_map->last_pos, sizeof(*pos));
> > > > > }
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is clear that we have to overwrite the pos from the caller.
> > > > 
> > > > Sure.  I mean the other parameter: the map.  I thought (and still think)
> > > > that pf_next_get_position should simply read off the position, without 
> > > > iterating the map one step forward, this is the job for pf_next.  But 
> > > > this 
> > > > issue is non-critical.
> > > 
> > > What code does the step forward in the 2-line function 
> > > pf_next_get_position?
> > 
> > Obviously I meant pf_next_get_path all the way.  Sorry.  But the comment 
> > still applies.
> 
> I still don't understand. pf_next_get_path will not do any extra
> iteration steps.

True true.  Your naming confused the hell out of me: 
plain_get_next_position is the function behind pf_next and not behind 
pf_get_next_position as a sane person would expect :)

sorry about this, the comment is now void but please register complaint 
about the naming.

> > 5.  What is the last argument to enum known_type (*get_known) (int,
> > int, struct player *,int) ?
> 
> Good question. Should be removed. No idea how it got there.

How did it compile with this?

G.