Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 18:56 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:52:57PM +0100, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > What about other non attacking units like sensors (and I guess there are > > others)? > > Do we need to handle them as special cases, too? > > I don't know. I admit I hadn't even thought of that, the repair droid > problem has been driving me crazy for so long that when I finally found the > solution, I didn't even think of that. In addition, I don't use sensors or > other kinds of non attacking units (other than repair droids/cyborgs) in a > commander group because they don't seem to provide any benefits; however, > it'd be a good idea to find out if they also malfunction wouldn't it? I'll > test this tonight. Would be nice if you could find out. But currently I don't know what the usual action of a sensor is, so I can't tell you how that should be done... Does it even do _anything_ besides just rolling around?
> > If yes, would it somehow be possible to make this more generic? Eg > > classify a droid as not attacking? > > I don't know. Sorry, this is the first time I've worked with the code so I > don't even know if there's a generic classification for things like non > attacking units. I haven't *seen* one, but that doesn't mean much at this > point. If something to do the equivalent doesn't already exist, I could > invent a function to do this - obviously if something does, well, please > tell me and I'll use it instead if I need to.(Reinventing the wheel is bad. > :) I have to admit: I have no idea... Some structures have a ->damageable attribute, and somehow all those special weapons like repair, build, commander are classified in the build menu. I don't know how this works (function or attribute) or where to search for a hint, though. > > > By the way, the formatting of the code is a little wacky, perhaps you > > > guys should use astyle to clean it up? Just a suggestion. > > > > Would be good, Per and I allready talked about that a looong time ago. > > But the code is currently very much moving and I think we didn't yet > > agree on a style we want to use, so we skiped it for now. > > Maybe we should start discussing the kind of style to use then? I'm not > saying you should run astyle against the tree now, or even relatively soon. > If you haven't agreed on the style to use, that's one more thing preventing > you from actually doing it right? I'll drop this if it's a touchy subject, > but I would like to be able to easily understand nested code. :) Shure we should decide on a style... The ansi style looks good to me. With options: --brackets=break --indent-switches --indent-cases --indent-preprocessor --one-line=keep-statements --one-line=keep-blocks What I wouldn't set is --convert-tabs
pgpmJOXyqwdc9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
