This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: A more sophisticated demonstration of change-type
On Sat, 2004-05-29 at 00:03, Lincoln Peters wrote:
> > I did notice your comments regarding 'acp-to-attack' and 'hit-chance'. I
> > believe the problem is in the fact that you are dealing with a list of
> > lists rather than a list of atoms in the case of 'hit-chance'. Your
> > 'levels' definition:
> >
> > (define levels (l1 l2 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 l10 l11 l12 l13 l14 l15 l16
> > l17 l18 l19 l20))
> >
> > expands to this:
> >
> > ((knight-1 goblin) (knight-2) ... (knight-20))
> >
> > and thus an atom is being iterated against a list of lists, but needs to
> > be iterated against other atoms (such as a list of atoms) in order to
> > locate distinct positions in the table to fill in.
>
> I think I get it.
You could probably still use the compact table format, but you would
need to restructure your definitions slightly and you would end up with
4 such tables instead of 1. Fortunately, you could just copy-n-paste,
and then edit a single column in each one.
(define l1k knight-1)
(define l1m goblin)
...
(define knight-levels (l1k ... l20k))
(define monster-levels (l1m ... l20m))
(table hit-chance
; Knight vs. Knight
(knight-1 knight-levels (50 ...))
(knight-2 knight-levels (55 50 ...))
...
; Knight vs. Monster
(knight-1 monster-levels (50 ...))
...
; Monster vs. Knight
(monster-1 knight-levels (50 ...))
...
; Monster vs. Monster
(monster-1 monster-levels (50 ...))
)
This would also give you more flexibility if a monster had a special
attack (firing, exploding, etc...) rather than a conventional attack,
because then you could 0 out its row without worrying about other units
at its level which still might want to perform conventional attacks.
> > > If the future isn't what it used to be, does that mean that the past
> > > is subject to change in times to come?
> >
> > The future isn't what it could be, because the past was subject to
> > change in times past (and present).
> >
> > But maybe that is just a revisionist take on the question.
>
> It's just a fortune, as per the popular UNIX application.
> It might seem a little spooky that it related to the message at all, at
> least until you look at the fortune attached to the bottom of *this*
> message.
Sure, sure. I understand that. You have been appending them to your
messages for a while now. I didn't really think it was related to the
message in any way; I was just having a little fun with it. That's all.
Eric