Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#7236) removal of most direct references to build_cost
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#7236) removal of most direct references to build_cost

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: use_less@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#7236) removal of most direct references to build_cost
From: "Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:46:14 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7236 >

> [use_less - Wed Jan 14 23:13:54 2004]:
> 
> > > I've made them into 
> > > unit_build_value(), 
> > > unit_buy_value(), 
> > > unit_disband_value(), 
> > 
> > > improvement_build_value(),
> > > improvement_buy_value(), and 
> > > improvement_sell_value().
> > 
> > I'm not a native speaker but shouldn't this *_build_cost() and
> > *_buy_cost()?
> > 
> 
> I chose *_value() names because the original functions I replaced were
> of the form *_value() and I wanted to stay consistent with that.
> 
> Also, using *_build_cost() implies that the function is simply a 
> passthrough to the build_cost variables in the unit_type and impr_type
> structs, which they are not in my accelerated production patch.
> 
> Perhaps *_build_shields() and *_buy_gold()?  That almost sounds
> redundant, though.

It is cost, not value.  The value of a unit/building is to be determined
by the player, and weighed against the cost of building/buying it.

Any of these seem reasonable to me:

  *_build_cost
  *_buy_cost

  *_build_shield_cost
  *_buy_gold_cost

  *_shield_cost
  *_gold_cost

jason



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