[Freeciv-Dev] Re: design of future orders

[Raimar Falke <i-freeciv-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:07:26PM -0500, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> My plan was for a single enumeration:
> 
>   {ORDER_WAIT, ORDER_MOVE, ORDER_ACTIVITY, ORDER_AUTOATTACK, ...,
>    ORDER_UNLOAD, ORDER_DIPLOMAT}
> 
>   with secondary (alread existing) structs to hold the move direction, 
> activity, or diplomatic action.

What are the problems here? I would also do it this way?

> Arnstein's plan renumbers the existing enumerations:
> 
>   {ACTIVITY_IDLE, ... ACTIVITY_MINE,
>    ACTIVITY_LAST}
>   {ACTION_AUTOATTACK = (ACTIVITY_LAST + 1), ..., ACTION_UNLOAD,
>    ACTION_LAST}
>   {DIPLOMAT_BRIBE = (ACTION_LAST + 1), ..., DIPLOMAT_MOVE,
>    DIPLOMAT_LAST}
>   {ORDER_MOVE = (DIPLOMAT_LAST + 1), ORDER_FINISH_TURN, ORDER_LAST}
> 
> where four enumerations are used (3 of them new) and the final order 
> type is just an integer comprising the union of the four.

No. If you want to cram multiple ranges into one do it like cid and
wid (climish.h). Without changes of the original values.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "> WHY?! Isn't it better to put $(shell cat cscope.files) on the list of
  I only have a yellow belt in makefile kungfu.  These fancy gnu make things
  are relatively new to some of us..."
    -- Mark Frazer to Vassilii Khachaturov in linux-kernel