This is the mail archive of the xconq7@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Xconq project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]