Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] [RFC] Path finding version 14
Home

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

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] [RFC] Path finding version 14
From: Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 20:27:11 +0200

On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> 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 :)

There is no pf_get_next_position (except in an old comment). There is
a pf_next_get_position. It is quite simple:
  - there is pf_get_path
  - and there is pf_next and the query functions pf_next_*

And the implementation has:
 - plain_get_path (called by pf_get_path and pf_next_get_path) and
 - plain_get_next_position (called by pf_next)

> 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?

A constant 0 is supplied.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  The trick is to keep breathing.


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