[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Path-finding in the presence of danger

[rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 04:48:24PM +0100, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > > We have rather different attitudes to the subject.  You seem to prefer to 
> > > have many call-backs, while I would rather have one which does it all.
> > > For this particular proposal,
> > >   int get_extra(int x, int y, int curent_extra, void *data)
> > > provides for the desired freedom.
> > 
> > I removed the extra_cost2 callback because there was no need for
> > it. So while I agree with you that this calculation can be made more
> > flexible I want to ask: so we know such situations? Is it worth it?
> > Adding this extra flexibility is done in some hours. No problem.
> 
> I can imagine some situations but you are right, we can add it in a matter 
> of hours when a need arises.

> > The above case can't work since ECOT may only depend on the position.
> 
> I am not sure I understand you here.  Why ECOT "may only depend on the 
> position"?  Because you postulated so?  Don't indulge in solipsism please 
> :)

If it only depends on the position it can be cached. And yes I
postulated it so.

> > The more I think about it the more I like the slim interface I
> > proposed in the mail I answered Ross. Nothing on our code would. We
> 
> "Nothing on our code would"?

"Nothing on our code would change"

> Please explain.

Usual slip of a word. Even nicer is the omitting of a "not".

> > would just rip the code of the path_finding.c and move it into
> > path_finding_tools.c. So we would get three real layers (algorithm,
> > callbacks with the freeciv logic and end-user like AI or agents).
> 
> Please elaborate or give a link to your email.

http://lists.complete.org/freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx/2002/09/msg00046.html.gz

You found it nice:

http://lists.complete.org/freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx/2002/09/msg00047.html.gz

This would be KISS.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx