On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 07:17:35PM -0700, William Balcerski wrote:
> From what I can tell, [...]

All useful response, thanks ... but it should be in the patch, since the
mailing list is a separate thing to the change log or repository.
Just amend your patch.

> Yes it is meant to do the same thing, I can factorize it, however there is
> one line I am not sure of.  In the updateSelf function, the way it
> determines whether to use sndSelf or sndSSelf is by the following:
> if(send_short &&  me->p_fuel < 61000  ) { /* A little margin ... */

Fuel is being sent as a 16-bit unsigned quantity (u_short).  It may
change between the time it is tested here and the time it is placed in
the short packet.  It seems reasonable to check it against a margin
rather than 65536.

It was clear to me, but it may not be clear to everyone.  Maybe you
should change the comment to be more clear.

> I am not sure why it looks at fuel, whereas for other places in the code
> it just checks send_short.

Because if fuel is too large, short packets are not appropriate.

> Regarding the semicritical packets (0x40), I can't figure out how the
> sendSC function works either :).  Specifically, what line checks to send
> the packet only if sequence number is 0x40?

Line 750:

	case SP_YOU|0x40:	/* ??? what is this? */

Clearly a hack.  ;-0

James Cameron    mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org     http://quozl.netrek.org/