Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4620) assertion in get_defender
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4620) assertion in get_defender

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ChrisK@xxxxxxxx, kenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4620) assertion in get_defender
From: "Gregory Berkolaiko" <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:25:22 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Jason Short wrote:

> Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Jason Short wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>The battleship is attacking a transport.  The transport's tile contains
> >>a second unit - the Mech. Inf. from an allied player that is being
> >>transported_by the transport.
> > 
> > 
> > This particular occurence is described in my latest email under PR#4260
> 
> Calling can_unit_attack_unit_at_tile is not enough.  In fact, it's 
> already done.  We need to call can_player_attack_tile.  Or perhaps 
> can_unit_attack_unit_at_tile should call this function?
> 
> I'm not sure about your proposed long-term solution.  Do all 
> get_defender users correctly check can_player_attack_tile?

I think they should.  But currently they don't.

G.




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]
  • [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4620) assertion in get_defender, Gregory Berkolaiko <=