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: <http://gna.org/patch/?4681> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev