Dennis Schridde schreef: > Am Montag, 8. Januar 2007 00:50 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: > >> Author: muggenhor >> Date: Mon Jan 8 00:50:30 2007 >> New Revision: 611 >> >> URL: http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/warzone?rev=611&view=rev >> Log: >> enabled some more code to compile with a C++ compiler without -fpermissive >> (i.e. there should be *less* compile-time errors now) * moved several >> #defines to the enums where they belong >> * changed some datatypes on declaration >> * prepended casts to malloc calls (using typeof() style) >> * changed some (void*) casts to (void**) where required >> * removed several #defines and there instances and then replaced them with >> their corresponding values from an enum >> >> Modified: >> trunk/src/statsdef.h >> > You did things like: > > NUM_MOVEMENT_MODEL, > INVALID_MOVEMENT = NUM_MOVEMENT_MODEL + 1 > > In fact INVALID_MOVEMENT will be NUM_MOVEMENT_MODEL+1 anyway, since it > follows > NUM_MOVEMENT_MODEL in the enum declaration... > I think it doesn't confuse the reader if you simply add INVALID_MOVEMENT to > the enum, without setting it to a specific value. > Additionally this would not create any problems if someone decided to add > another entry to the struct. In your style INVALID_MOVEMENT will allways be > NUM_MOVEMENT+1, even though it is not the last element in the enum. This > might create a problems later on. > Can't say anything on that but to agree you're right: fixed/improved in r616
-- Giel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
