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 19:28:36 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: bug in infantry building a base which is already started
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:
> Maybe, but then we would have to rewrite the entire kernel.
To some extent, yes.
>There are many
> cases like this (not only in the action code) where units are accessed
> directly, if it is safe to do so.
Yes, and it would probably be better if there were fewer such
cases.
> In this specific case, it doesn't matter
> if we access real units since enemy units are ignored and information about
> them therefore cannot leak back to the interface or the AI.
True, except that I would regard the task as belonging to the UI
or the AI that invoked it. To use Peter Garrone's terminology: the
task is not referree code. Therefore, it should not be privy to
the underlying unit data structures.
> I agree that a pure view-based kernel code might have some advantages. But
> we are a far way from there.
Yes, but, a journey of a 1000 miles begins with a first step, to
quote an old professor of mine.
If we work on weeding out the direct unit accesses as we encounter
them in the non-action code, then we will be in better shape when
(and I suppose, if) the time comes to make the transition to true
client-server. This is the philosophy I have been operating
under, anyway. Otherwise, unit views don't mean too much to me in
some cases.
Eric