This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: bug in infantry building a base which is already started
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Hans Ronne <hronne at comhem dot se>
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: bug in infantry building a base which is already started
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:
> Actually, what macro you use doesn't make any difference, i.e. the second
> infantry still refuses to join the build, and instead goes into passive
> waiting mode.
Really? I thought I saw it join in the building. Or, at least, it
moved inside the base and pretended to be doing something until
the base was done. :-) Once I saw that, I was satisfied that the
bug was fixed, and don't think that I actually went into survey
mode and clicked on the 2nd infantry. Sounds like maybe I should
have....
> However, if you override the view code by turning on see-all things work as
> expected, with either macro. So it seems that the core unit view code is
> the real culprit.
This is what I actually suspected too, but because there is all
this extra "->transport" and "->occupant" stuff in the "with_occs"
version of the macro, I thought there might be a problem in
there somewhere.
>The unit view code is unusual in that it uses a hash
> table and "nextinhash" rather than the usual "nexthere". The effect of
> see-all is to overide the use of "nextinhash".
Right. I noticed this when I was investigating the problem last
night. But, I was too tired to finish the deeper investigation,
and went for a shallower "fix". Probably I should have went to bed
instead of doing a CVS commit.
> I always had a bad feeling about the view code and its hash table, since I
> am not convinced that it works as expected in all circumstances. Maybe we
> should take a closer look at it.
I intend to, but probably not until the weekend. I have to finish
preparing a presentation for next week at work. I also have to
re-install Windows XP in its virtual machine, since I had a bit of
a "mishap" with it on Sunday night, which is why I didn't release
a new installer package then.
Eric