Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: June 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#4461) tech_is_available(A_FUTURE) is always FALSE
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#4461) tech_is_available(A_FUTURE) is always FALSE

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rt-guest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: kimiko@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#4461) tech_is_available(A_FUTURE) is always FALSE
From: "Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:15:39 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[jdorje - Mon Jun 30 03:09:20 2003]:

> [guest - Sun Jun 29 16:46:30 2003]:
> 
> > CVS version of June 27
> > 
> > > civserver: plrhand.c:222: found_new_tech: Assertion
> > `tech_is_available(plr, tech_found)' failed.
> > 
> > Turn N: found Future Tech. I in ancient scrolls of wisdom
> > Turn N+1: research of Future Tech. I is finished -> crash
> > Actually, that last statement is a guess. I was researching FT1 when I
> > found it in a hut. The next turn, the server crashed. Sorry, no saved
> > games and hence no backtrace either.
> 
> A_FUTURE is not "available" because it doesn't "exist".
> 
> Should it exist?  Should it be available?  Is the assertion right to
> fail, or should it be changed?  I'm not sure.

I'm still not sure if the current state is correct or not, but since the
adjacent assertion special-cases it I think we're safe enough to do the
same here.  I also added a comment about this.

As for the general problem, I'm not sure if A_FUTURE should "exist" or
be "available".  Currently AFAIK you cannot trade future technologies or
set future technologies as your tech_goal.  This is probably correct,
and A_FUTURE should never be "available".  But I think it should "exist"
(inasmuch as any technology should exist...we had the discussion
elsewhere about why this status flag should be removed).

jason

Attachment: future_tech.diff
Description: future_tech.diff


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