[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #17, bug #13600 (project freeciv): ups; I did not used the right directory ...; Yes, it is there! ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Nachricht ges

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #16, bug #13600 (project freeciv): NegatedREADME_13600.diff already committed as r15712. ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent via/by Gn

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #15, bug #13600 (project freeciv): Could you please add the change to the README file? (file #5874: NegatedREADME_13600.diff) ___ Reply to this item at: ___

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Update of bug #13600 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test => Fixed Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #14, bug #13600 (project freeciv): S2_1 version of the ruleset load time check. Increasing maximum number of requirements would break network compatibility so it's not part of this patch. (file #5881) ___ Additional Item

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #13, bug #13600 (project freeciv): You are right; it can be don both ways and never change a running system! I think it's important that the possibility to do a negation of a reqirement this way is mentioned somethere (especially for ruleset authors and - within the rulesets -

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #12, bug #13600 (project freeciv): "What about a possible cleanup patch to use 'negated' and remove 'nreqs'?" Presumably nreqs support was introduced just because somebody thought it to be cleaner and easier for ruleset authors; no need to define 'negated' value for each and ev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #13600 (project freeciv): Yes it's fine. What about a possible cleanup patch to use 'negated' and remove 'nreqs'? ___ Reply to this item at: _

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #13600 (project freeciv): Correct. Now back to README.effects text. Do we agree on attached patch, where I have dropped reference to negated effect? (file #5874) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: Neg

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #13600 (project freeciv): Sorry, I don't get the names right. Here the changed text of my last comment: If I understand the code right, the same functions are used for the requirements of effects and buildings. So I could negate a requirement of an effect (using 'negat

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #13600 (project freeciv): It's not negating the effect, but requirement of the effect. 'nreq' stands for 'negated requirements'. ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #13600 (project freeciv): If I understand the code right, the same functions are used for effects and buildings. So I could negate an effect in the effects 'reqs' part to implement the 'nreqs'. ___ Reply to this i

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #13600 (project freeciv): "Would it be possible to include a hint in the README.effects file" ...effect or requirement is negated... What do you mean by negated effect? It seems to me that it should simple say that "requirement is negated". ___

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Update of bug #13600 (project freeciv): Status:None => Ready For Test Assigned to:None => cazfi ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #13600 (project freeciv): Thanks for your patch! I tested it and freeciv is runing now with the changed ruleset. The desired effect for the Hydro Plant is there ... Would it be possible to include a hint in the README.effects file (version2-nreqs_impr.patch.diff)? Does

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #13600 (project freeciv): Attached patch increases MAX_NUM_REQS to 10 and, more importantly, adds ruleset loading time check that it's not exceeded. This way user at least gets sensible error message immediately instead of weird crash later on. (file #5871)

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #13600 (project freeciv): I debugged this and it turned out that problem was not in the fact that requirements are 'negated' but in their amount. There is hardcoded constant MAX_NUM_REQS = 4 and more reqs chokes the network code. This limitation is not even documented!

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #13600 (project freeciv): OK; but it should working, or? (it is not used at all in the ruleset ...) ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Nac

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #13600 (project freeciv): Going slightly off topic; it's on purpose so that you can build new kind of plant in a city that already has one. Otherwise player would be forced to sell old one before *starting* to build new one, meaning old plant would not be used in the pro

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #13600] ruleset requirement option: negated

URL: Summary: ruleset requirement option: negated Project: Freeciv Submitted by: syntron Submitted on: Samstag 30.05.2009 um 22:05 Category: rulesets Severity: 2 - Minor