Re: bug in infantry building a base which is already started

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>]

On Wed, 26 May 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:

> Maybe, but then we would have to rewrite the entire kernel. 

To some extent, yes.

>There are many
> cases like this (not only in the action code) where units are accessed
> directly, if it is safe to do so.

Yes, and it would probably be better if there were fewer such 
cases.

> In this specific case, it doesn't matter
> if we access real units since enemy units are ignored and information about
> them therefore cannot leak back to the interface or the AI.

True, except that I would regard the task as belonging to the UI 
or the AI that invoked it. To use Peter Garrone's terminology: the 
task is not referree code. Therefore, it should not be privy to 
the underlying unit data structures.

> I agree that a pure view-based kernel code might have some advantages. But
> we are a far way from there.

Yes, but, a journey of a 1000 miles begins with a first step, to 
quote an old professor of mine.

If we work on weeding out the direct unit accesses as we encounter 
them in the non-action code, then we will be in better shape when 
(and I suppose, if) the time comes to make the transition to true 
client-server. This is the philosophy I have been operating 
under, anyway. Otherwise, unit views don't mean too much to me in 
some cases.

Eric