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
