Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: logically weird loop
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 18:18:23 +0100
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <df2c4dd068f2eb05132d61d12b37228faa46dffe@i2pn2.org>
References: <0e1c6d2e74d44a715bf7625ca2df022d169f878a@i2pn2.org>
 <vhl32r$66a2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:18:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3378314"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="+ydHcGjgSeBt3Wz3WTfKefUptpAWaXduqfw5xdfsuS0";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.19
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vhl32r$66a2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4545
Lines: 101

Janis Papanagnou pisze:
> On 20.11.2024 16:56, fir wrote:
>> i coded soem roguelike game loop which gave me
>> a lot of logical trouble
>>
>> imagine game has micro turns, thise micro turns are
>> noted by
>> int game_time = 0; //styart with microturn 0
>>
>> if you press a key on keyboard you update variable
>> of chuman character: character[HUM}.action_end = game_time+300
>> then the not human bits should execute in thise microturns
>> until you reacg turn 300 then you need to read keyboard again
>>
>> what work is terribly weird, maybe becouse i started
>> with while loop and while loops from my experience
>> im not sure but imo tent do be logically heavy problematic
>> form tiem to time..what work is
> 
> While loops are no more problematic than any other standard
> control structure with as simple an operational semantics.
> 
>>
>> void ProcessMicroturnsUntilHuman()
>>   {
>>      if( game_time < character[HUM].action_end)
>>      {
>>       while(game_time < character[HUM].action_end)
>>       {
>>           DispatchActions();
>>            game_time++;
>>       }
>>       if(game_time == character[HUM].action_end)     //**
>>          DispatchActions();
>>      }
>>
>>   }
> 
> (I recall to have seem exactly such a code pattern (i.e. the
> 'if <', 'while <', 'if =') about 40 years ago in an university
> exercise, so I suppose that structure is an effect of a valid
> algorithm structure property. - But that just aside. It may
> soothe you.)
> 


this solo looks weird imo

   while(game_time < character[HUM].action_end)
   {
          DispatchActions();
           game_time++;
   }
   DispatchActions();

the fact that you need add a thing outside the while loop which is 
logically part of this loop.. i eman game_time after that must be
character[HUM].action_end and the DispatchActions(); need to be called
for that value too

this looks sorta unnatural and my game not worked correctly until i find 
i must add that final   DispatchActions();
it means imo that this while loop is here not natural and being not 
natural it makes you probles when you need to debug (and even debug 
sorta hard) why this logic dont work

also i must also add the previous if
it is   if( game_time < character[HUM].action_end) {}
to not allow all this code to re-enter when it finally
reaches game_time == character[HUM].action_end

its all weird and unnatural..but is logically not easy to find better 
way (though i not thinked on this too much only noticed this is kinda
weird imo, and i thing its baddly writen here)



> What I really suggest - and sorry for not literally answering
> your question - is to implement (for your roguelike) an event
> queue where you schedule not only your human player's actions,
> but also the monsters, and other timed events in the game. I'm
> aware that this might mess up your plans but I think it will
> pay to have a cleaner "simulation structure", also with better
> decoupling properties.[*]
> 
>>
>> is there some more proper form of this loop?
>> (the line nioted by ** i know is not needed but
>> overally this loop is weird imo
> 
> It looks not nice, indeed. But code structure follows demands.
> And, at first glance, I see no better structural variant with
> loops and conditionals.
> 
> Janis
> 
> 
> [*] A friend of mine just recently implemented the code frame
> for a roguelike and followed the suggestion of an event based
> object-oriented implementation; it worked well, he told me.
>