Re: time.g weirdness

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>]

Hans Ronne wrote:

>>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:

> Well, the problem in that case was actually the opposite: it was impossible
> to move into the unknown because the early version of Peter's pathfinder
> always returned false. 

Oh, right. I did flip things around.

>I think the problems we see now are due to
> subsequent changes in the command pre-flight code which were in prompted by
> and in part depended on Peter's code. Some of these changes were kept when
> the pathfinding was removed.
> 
> I have just checked out the November 12 sources. My intention is to try to
> restore command processing as closely as possible to how it worked back
> then. With no path-finding algorithm, some of these pre-flight checks make
> little sense.

Well, just for the record, removing the pathfinding code was not an easy 
exercise once things had started to become entangled as they had. 
However, it was not a blind one either; the code surgery would have been 
completed much sooner than it was, if I hadn't given each reverse patch 
a fair amount of consideration and determined what needed to be cut out 
of the reverse patch (in order to keep it in the code repository). It is 
certainly possible that with so many different little pieces of code 
being touched over a period spanning half a year, and with the 
application of an occasional patch hunk failing (and thus needing 
further editing), that something slipped through the cracks. It could 
also be that I misjudged how a piece of machinery would behave after the 
alteration. I did try to pay attention to such things, but, like I said, 
it was not an easy task by any means. I also think that, when I 
completed the operation, I admonished ourselves to be on the lookout for 
breakage, knowing that it would almost certainly be found.

Eric