[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2370) Path finding

["Raimar Falke" <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:33:09AM -0800, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Raimar Falke wrote:
> 
> > macro, wrong function types and so on. I also removed TM_AVERAGE
> > because I think that there is no clean semantic.
> 
> Please put it back.
> TM_AVERAGE is the compatibility mode with the current warmap and it is 
> also the most sensible of them all: it is faster than SAFE or LUCK and 
> NONE is plain stupid -- it will think that riflemen will take 3 turns to 
> climb a mountain.

Hmmm. I agree to keep this rolling.

> BTW, SAFE and LUCK are not good names.  How about BEST and WORST?

Best and worst what? Path, cost, time?

> > Please add pf_get_path and pf_next_get_position since these are
> > missing.
> 
> Okay, I will need to find your path-finding though.  pf_next_get_position 
> is evil, btw.  When did I agree to ditch pf_next_get_cost? :((

You know that a lot of these can be implemented in terms of
pf_next_get_position ?!

> > There is currently no standard for section comments. You used
> > /* -------------------- generating the map ------------------------ */
> > I used in cm.c
> > /****************************************************************************
> >                            algorithmic functions
> > *****************************************************************************/
> > 
> > IMHO these - are bad because I can no longer search with "---" for the
> > next file in a diff.
> 
> Ah, poor you :)
> Now you have to search for "+++".

less searches for regexp. So I would have to write "\+\+\+". Obviously
too many keystrokes ;)

> But if you wish, sustitute ----- for =====.

Yes = is good.

> The point is, section separators should be different from function 
> headers.

I agree.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "The two rules for success in life are:
  1) Never tell them everything you know."