Follow-up Comment #2, bug #23781 (project freeciv):
_How would use of fake player give you better semantics than NULL player?_
It would distinguish "no one" from "pass or fail depending on what
req_problem_type this is".
_Using "animal" (assuming it exist in the game) would result DiplRel "war" to
be TRUE, others FALSE._
Thanks.
_What *is* right answer to question "is this player allied to <empty>" and "is
this player in war with <empty>" (and their "!present" opposites)_
My view is that the correct reply is "no" in both cases. There is no one to be
allied to, not allied to, at war with or not at war with. This is the answer
currently given with RPT_CERTAIN.
Consequences:
* A rule that permits "Explode Nuclear" outside you borders will have to be
written as two action enablers. The first uses the "Is foreign" DiplRel. The
second uses the "Claimed" CityTile requirement.
* Absolute action enabler evaluation (is_action_enabled_*) will work like
today.
* User relative action enabler evaluation (action_prob_vs_*) will work like
today. It uses meta knowledge and RPT_CERTAIN.
It is possible that confusing "no one" with "pass or fail depending on what
req_problem_type this is" is safer than messing with fake player creation. I'm
not familiar enough with the users of RPT_POSSIBLE to tell without doing a
code review.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?23781>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
