[Freeciv-Dev] Re: RFC: an interface question

[Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:09:55AM -0500, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> For gen-topologies, Ross and I agree on 3 standard choices for topology: 
> isometric or not, north-south wrapping or not, and east-west wrapping or 
> not.
> 
> This leads to a question of server interfaces.  One choice is:
> 
>   > help isometricmap
>   Option: isometricmap  -  set to have an isometric map
>   instead of the standard flat-earth one
>   Status: changeable
>   Value: 0, Minimum: 0, Default: 0, Maximum: 1
>   > help xwrap
>   Option: xwrap  -  Set to wrap in east-west direction
>   Status: changeable
>   Value: 1, Minimum: 0, Default: 1, Maximum: 1
>   > help ywrap
>   Option: ywrap  -  Set to wrap in north-south direction
>   Status: changeable
>   Value: 0, Minimum: 0, Default: 0, Maximum: 1
> 
> while the other is:
> 
>   > help maptype
>   Option: maptype  -  Map type or topology
>   Description:
>     0 = Flat_Earth              4 = iso Flat_Earth
>     1 = Standard (Wrap E-W)     5 = iso Standard (Wrap E-W)
>     2 = Neptune  (Wrap N-S)     6 = iso Neptune  (Wrap N-S)
>     3 = Torus World             7 = iso Torus World
> 
>   Status: changeable
>   Value: 1, Minimum: 0, Default: 1, Maximum: 7
> 
> ultimately it shouldn't matter much which interface is used, but the 
> fact is that this generally ties in closely with which backend is being 
> used.
> 
> My question, therefore, is: which interface is better/more 
> intuitive/easier to use?
> 
> jason

I prefer the first, it makes the semantics (3 independent settings) clear.
I don't mind having many server options but it would be nice
if they are grouped better.  Perhaps there should be be an option
to show and set different kinds of options separately.
For example we could introduce category names into certain commands
so you could say

  /explain map
  /show map

to show only the map-related options.

Would that improve the interface?

-- 
Reinier