Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#9624) remove ugliness from ai_calc_pollution/fallo
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#9624) remove ugliness from ai_calc_pollution/fallo

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#9624) remove ugliness from ai_calc_pollution/fallout
From: "Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 09:51:05 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9624 >

Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9624 >
> 
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Jason Short wrote:
> 
> 
>><URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9624 >
>>
>>ai_calc_pollution and ai_calc_fallout has a rather ugly hack to make
>>sure that pollution and fallout are cleaned up.  However this isn't
>>necessary since there's already a mechanism in place for making sure of
>>that: pplayer->ai.warmth (either 50 or 100, a truly huge value) is
>>passed as the "extra" (bonus) value for this action to
>>consider_settler_action.
>>
>>This patch simply removes the original hack.  I believe this makes
>>best_worker_tile_value unused but I didn't remove it (note that there's
>>a bug in best_worker_tile_value causing it to really return the worst
>>tile value, see PR#9615).
> 
> 
> I am not sure it is such an ugly hack.  As you explained, adding the
> "best" merely signifies that this task will be more tempting than any
> other work in this city's area.  I think it is quite wise.

But that is already practically guaranteed by the "extra" value passed 
to consider_settler_action.  There is surely no need for multiple such 
values to be added on.

jason




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