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] |
I disagree. There is (or should be) an attempted attack carried out on the ghost unit. As near as I can tell, an attempted attack could be framed in terms of an action (which may, in turn, invoke other actions).
I agree that there should be an attempt to attack the ghost unit, which
should be framed in terms of an action. That is my whole point.
But this is not how the code works. What happens is that the attempted attack never occurs because check_fire_at_action returns false. This, I would emphasize, happens before prep_fire_at_action is called, so the action is not even scheduled, much less attempted.
The check_x_action functions are actually used in two completely different
ways.
As I see it, the latter is really an abuse of these functions, particularly if they reference real units instead of unit views, as in the current case.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |