[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#9878) new function building_has_effect
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9878 >
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Jason Short wrote:
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9878 >
> This patch adds a new function building_has_effect. This function takes
> a building type and an effect type and returns a boolean indicating
> whether the building provides the effect. Unlike other functions which
> return the value of the effect, this one just returns a boolean.
> Finding the value of the effect requires more work (in theory) and also
> means knowing the range. This function therefore will probably only
> ever work for some effects.
> Naturally this function is taken from the effects patch.
> To begin with only EFT_PROD_TO_GOLD (provided by B_CAPITAL) is supported.
> I had to move the improvement_type enumeration into fc_types.h to make
> this work. Otherwise there is a circular dependency between
> improvement.h and effects.h. Of course eventually this enum should turn
> into an int. In the process of moving I removed the enum name (having
> it around might tempt people to _use_ it) and the unnecessary #define
> (unecessary IMO since when the time comes we can just change the code).
1. The reason I put fc_types.h before any other includes is to indicate
that ultimately a header file should only include fc_types.h at most. But
maybe it's a wrong goal.
2. I assume building_has_effect will be extended soon. So it will become
a switch and we can begin with a switch to save future diff lines. Note
that it returns 0 whereas it should return bool.
3. Is this area controversial at all? Because otherwise I would just
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#9878) new function building_has_effect,
Gregory Berkolaiko <=