From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12202 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2004 22:43:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12195 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2004 22:43:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net) (81.228.8.110) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 2004 22:43:34 -0000 Received: by av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 492F437E47; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:43:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.177]) by av8-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3964B37E42; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:43:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [212.181.162.155] (h155n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.155]) by smtp2-1-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D05F37E42; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:43:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: u22611592@m1.226.comhem.se Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:33:00 -0000 To: Eric McDonald From: Hans Ronne Subject: Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long) Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00904.txt.bz2 >>If the action check failed because the unit view doesn't not >>correspond to an actual unit at the given position, then the task >>logic should make a callback to the AI or UI to remove the unit >>view, IMO. This would break the cycle. > >Yes, I thought about that. However, since failed tasks do not consume acps, >this would provide a cost-free way to probe the terrain for real vs. bogus >enemy units. To follow up, this problem already exists with the current code. If I switch off the AI and try to hit the same bogus unit view with a manual 'f' command I get the anser "No visible unit there" (and no acp is consumed). So probing the terrain for free is already possible, precisely because do_hit_unit_task tries to do a fire_at_action (or an attack_action) instead of a fire_into_action (or an overrun_action). Only the latter are really safe to use in a unit view context. Hans