Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4681 (project freeciv):

Is it safe to assume that is_ferry_type() is running in a server context, so
that the code can be something like the following?

    unit_type_iterate(putype) {
      puclass = utype_class(putype);
      if (can_unit_type_transport(pferry, utype_class(putype))
          && !uclass_has_flag(puclass, UCF_MISSILE)
          && (puclass->adv.sea_move == MOVE_NONE
              || 0 != utype_fuel(putype))) {
        return TRUE;
    } unit_type_iterate_end;

    If so, do you think it safe to use sea_move != MOVE_FULL rather than
sea_move == MOVE_NONE to handle the case of units with limited amphibious
capabilities needing transport?  I'm not that worried about removing the
restriction on UMT_LAND, simply because the code currently theoretically also
supports UMT_BOTH.  Where I suspect problems may occur is in handling UMT_SEA
units seeking transport (and preventing this may continue to have value).


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Gna!

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to