Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7230) patrolling tririemes may sink
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7230) patrolling tririemes may sink

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: jshort@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7230) patrolling tririemes may sink
From: "Gregory Berkolaiko" <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:15:51 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7230 >

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Jason Short wrote:

> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7230 >
> 
> > [i-freeciv-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Mon Jan 12 15:35:43 2004]:
> 
> > > The simplest solution would be to guarantee that the unit always had the
> > > same number of MP at start and end of the route.  This is accomplished
> > >   if the unit starts with less-than-full MP
> > >     wait at the beginning of the route
> > >   else if the unit ends with less-than-full MP
> > >     wait at the end of the route
> > > this is guaranteed correct but isn't optimal.
> > 
> > I think this solution is acceptable. Especially since the purpose of
> > patrol if not to go from A to B in the fastest way but to survey the
> > area.
> 
> Perhaps this solution isn't as simple as it seems.  Since it's
> distinctly less than optimal, it should only be used for units that have
> danger positions.  But how are we to know which units those are?

add a function

bool pf_is_danger_defined(struct pf_parameter *param)
{
  return (param->is_pos_dangerous != NULL);
}

to the PF.  Call it after the parameters are filled in the patrol route 
creating code.

G.




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