Fabian Mueller wrote: > Paul Ebermann wrote: >> Is this not the more a reason to have "id=" for defining the named areas? >> [named_area] >> id="grass_in_town" >> >> area_id="town" >> terrain="Gg*" >> [/named_area] >> >> This would define the area "grass_in_town" as the subset of the "town" area >> with grass >> terrain. >> >> (This would not be used in a named_area generated by the map editor.) > > Please explain in more detail. > I have only vague rendering of your proposal.
OK, maybe I misunderstood how named areas should work ... If I understand right: (1) one now can use "area_id" as part of any standard location filter, additional to other filter conditions. (2) one can use a standard location filter inside of [named_area] to define a new area. So, how to combine both sides of the feature? The semantics would be: "define an new area as all the locations in another area for which some additional conditions hold". But this would not work when for both uses we have the same attribute "area_id". Paŭlo _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
