The Watermelon schreef: > > > On 1/28/07, *Giel van Schijndel* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL > PROTECTED]>> > wrote: >> I assume ai.c's changes belong to 4? >> >> Anyway, on line 74-86 of your patch you modify the droid's target update >> code to make sure all targets are updated. >> >> I'm just wondering as to why you wrap it in an if-statement (not the >> existing one, but the one you've created). Since even if >> `psDroid->numWeaps =< 1' (the else condition), the for loop would still >> do exactly the same as your one-time function call. And yes I know this >> piece of code probably saves us some CPU instructions, about 4 or so. >> >> This however isn't good enough a reason for making the code that much >> harder to read, that simple 3-line for-loop iteration is better to read >> and will most certainly have no exponential performance hit, nor linear, >> only static (which is negligible). >> >> Well, since that's all my comments on that part of the patch ( i.e. >> change 4), I've committed it without the if-wrap around the >> for-iteration in r683. >> >> -- >> Giel > the '<=1' check is intended,because a utility droid without weapon > will still have one valid target...if you just use 'for(i = 0;i < > psDroid->numWeaps;i++)' for both weapon and utiltiy droids,the target > update for utility droid will get skipped and cause undesired effects > such as repairing 'died' droid > and constructing destroyed building foundation I think. Thanks for your answer, fixed it in r684. Also added an explaining comment that updateAttackTarget always has to be called on the first weapon-slot (i.e. 0).
PS all you where originally checking in your patch was `psDroid->numWeaps != 0' for the for-iteration or ==0 for the other call. -- Giel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
