Re: Coding question about apartments: interaction with random maps?

[Peter Mardahl <peterm@tesla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU>]

> 
> > DAMN was the author of the apartment code, apparently.
> 
> No, I just fixed some bugs in it a while back.  I never touched any of
> the random map code.
> 
> 
> > My question is about the code on line 271 of main.c.
> 
> I just updated my copy from cvs, and main.c line 271 is:
> 
>    if (EXIT_PATH(exit_ob)) {

> which simply queries whether the exit leads to a different map.  Or
> does the EXIT_PATH macro have some other meaning for random maps that
> I'm not aware of?

Yes, I meant the whole IF.

> If you mean the various other tests inside that if, that was one of
> the bugs I fixed.  Because of the way map filenames are used as
> identifiers and are calculated from settings and map names, it was
> necessary to specifically check for the case of an exit leading from
> an apartment to an apartment, both of which have a default map as well
> as a personal map.  (see Pocket Reality)
> 
> 
> > Newly generated random maps always seem to go through the
> > apartment code for some reason.
> > 
> > Was this intended?

It just goes through that IF, which was marked as pertaining
to apartments, which confused me.

> Not by me.  I never played with the random maps much, and it's been a
> while since I even looked at the apartment code.  As I mentioned
> above, there is some correlation, in that they're not normal maps, but
> there are enough differences that perhaps they should be more cleanly
> seperated.  If this were C++, one might even be tempted to make
> apartments and random maps seperate sub-classes of maps.

Yeah, I think it would be cleaner.

PeterM