From: Lincoln Peters <sampln@sbcglobal.net>
To: Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>
Cc: Xconq list <xconq7@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Possible bug in side_can_research
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1094879273.28085.18040.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <414266B6.3030106@phy.cmich.edu>
On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 19:45, Eric McDonald wrote:
> Lincoln Peters wrote:
>
> > When I re-wrote ai_plan_research, I had assumed that the
> > side_can_research function would return false for advances that have
> > already been researched. However, having run advances.g several times
>
> That should be the case, and seems to do exactly that in the places it
> is used in the new side research code in the SDL UI. I am surprised that
> it is causing you problems.
So maybe there's a logic error in the new ai_plan_research function that
produces an effect comparable to a logic error in side_can_research?
It's certainly possible.
>
> > Would it be reasonable to modify side_can_research so that it returns
> > false for advances that the side already has? Or would it be better to
> > place the necessary code in ai_plan_research instead?
>
> Actually, there is a function to update the research vector and it gets
> called whenever a topic is actually researched in the kernel run code.
I'm a bit unclear on this. Do you mean that it selects a new advance to
research at the beginning of every turn? I'd say that such behavior is
rather inefficient.
---
Lincoln Peters
<sampln@sbcglobal.net>
There's a way out of any cage.
-- Captain Christopher Pike, "The Menagerie" ("The Cage"),
stardate unknown.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-11 5:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-10 19:17 Lincoln Peters
2004-09-11 2:49 ` Eric McDonald
2004-09-11 19:27 ` Lincoln Peters [this message]
2004-09-11 19:54 ` Eric McDonald
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1094879273.28085.18040.camel@localhost \
--to=sampln@sbcglobal.net \
--cc=mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu \
--cc=xconq7@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).