Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
CorsixTH Development
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Question about patch for issue 1236
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Stephen E. Baker  
View profile  
 More options May 2 2012, 8:39 am
From: "Stephen E. Baker" <baker.stephe...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:39:24 -0400
Local: Wed, May 2 2012 8:39 am
Subject: Re: Question about patch for issue 1236
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Thanks Lego.

That's what I thought - the patch I wrote was just meant to be more
restricted in case it had been set to 20 for some future reason (and
because I hadn't bothered to follow up is isTilePartOfNearbyObject at
that time.  I see it's always explicitly set to 10).  I've attached a
new patch to the ticket based on this conversation.

Stephen E. Baker

P.S. When map sizes become variable we'll have to ensure they stay <=
2^15 x 2^15

On 02/05/2012 7:13 AM, Edvin Linge wrote:

> Hi!

> I actually have no idea why it is smaller in that function. Looking at
> where it is used the default should definitely be changed rather than
> special distance arguments for each call. There is even one instance
> which already calls it with 2^30. All calls to the function are made
> by rooms who want to count or use all objects of one type, they will
> all fail if the room is too big.

> /Lego3

> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen E. Baker
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:35 PM
> To: corsix-th-dev@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Question about patch for issue 1236

> Hello,

> I wrote a patch that resolves issue 1236, however I wonder if it was
> more verbose than necessary.  The default distance for
> findAllObjectsNear is 20, where the default distance for all the other
> path finding functions is 2^30.  Of course 20 was not enough to find all
> the objects in large rooms, which the patch I attached to that issue
> corrects by setting an appropriate distance for each room lookup.
> However if the default distance had been sufficiently large, e.g. 2^30
> like the others then it would have been unnecessary.

> So my question is, was it defaulted to 20 on purpose (e.g. for
> performance considerations; to be used in halls etc.) or was that a
> typo, and my patch is unnecessary?

> Either way, my patch is safe and has been tested, assuming room sizes
> smaller than 32768x32768.  (I think map sizes bigger than that would
> cause other issues.)

> Stephen E. Baker


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google