[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Civ 2 Style Waste: A RFC

["Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not necessarily. I believe Civ2 waste applied equivalently as corruption
to shields. There may be Freeciv extensions for trade that don't make as
much sense for shields and thus some separation there.

I also would not get hung up on the namimg of internal controls. Just 
because something is extended to be a control over both corruption and
waste does not mean the code needs to be renamed or cloned to make sure
there are dual naming paths.

If you really are concerned, or want to build in the hooks for a future
split put a #define in the struct that gives an alternate for the field
in question and maake all the new waste code use the #defined access.
Then if you ever do actually make two distinct sets of rules, you just
need to put new fields in place of the #define.

At the moment though I would suggest not building a cloned implementation
except where there are real concerns like the tradesize extension.

Cheers,
RossW
=====

At 02:06 PM 02/11/30 +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
>
>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
>> New waste patch attached.
>
>Sorry, if we are to have waste as a separate mechanic along with
>corruption, then just having gov->waste_level won't be enough. All the
>gov->*corruption* parameters will have to be duplicated.
>
>  - Per