Re: [HELP] Time keeps on slipping, slipping... (was: Backstab crashing)

From: George Greer (
Date: 01/27/01

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Daniel A. Koepke wrote:

>How do you all propose handling the weather constants for times?  As an
>example, the original weather.c line is:
>  if ((time_info.month >= 9) && (time_info.month <= 16))
>which I changed to:
>  if (time_info.month > (MUD_MONTHS_PER_YEAR/2) &&
>      time_info.month < MUD_MONTHS_PER_YEAR)

The numbers and names aren't the best (i.e., don't take these verbatim
without thinking about it), but for illustrative properties:

#define SEASONS 4
#define SPRING  9
#define SUMMER  13
#define AUTUMN  17
#define WINTER  5
#define FALL    AUTUMN  /* :) */

#define IS_SEASON(t, s, e)      (t >= s && t < e)
#define IS_SUMMER(t)            IS_SEASON(t, SUMMER, AUTUMN)
#define IS_AUTUMN(t)            IS_SEASON(t, AUTUMN, WINTER)
#define IS_WINTER(t)            IS_SEASON(t, WINTER, SPRING)
#define IS_SUMMER(t)            IS_SEASON(t, SPRING, SUMMER)

        if (IS_SUMMER(time_info.month))
        if (IS_AUTUMN(time_info.month + 1))

>I'm actually leaning towards the introduction of more #defines.  The sole
>purpose for this is flexibility.  I chose the more flexible approach for
>the hours of sun rise, etc.  One particular effect this might have is
>redefining MUD_HOUR_SUN_x to use a table indexed by time_info.month so
>that you can realistically model longer days during the summer and shorter
>days during the winter, or maybe even have several days where the sun does
>not rise at all.

Sounds good.

>Flexibility is also the reason for keeping the days per week and the
>number of days per month separate (instead of doing, say, MUD_DAY_PER_WEEK
>and MUD_WEEK_PER_MONTH).  If you wanted to model our calendar system, for
>instance, you could not because the number of days in a month cannot
>usually be evenly divided by the number of days in a week (the exception
>is February in non-leap years) and is dependent upon the month.

So how about:
unsigned char days_per_month[] = { 30, 28, 31, 31, 31, 30, 15, 45, ... };

The only problem being when people start changing defines and not changing
the values.  We'll probably have to write a wrapper function that checks
the bounds to make sure it isn't exceeded.

>My thought on the ubiquitous beginning_of_time is to eliminate the
>constant, and let people define their starting year.  The time of first
>running will be used to record the initial time so time will continue to
>elapse while the mud is down/etc.:


>    fwrite((char *) &epoch, sizeof(unsigned long), 1, fp);


Make it editable, not some binary garbage.

     fprintf(fp, "%ld\n", epoch);

>    if (!fp || !fread((char *) &epoch, sizeof(unsigned long), 1, fp)) {

     if (!fp || fscanf(fp, "%ld\n", &epoch) != 1) {

You might make it unsigned if you prefer.

George Greer

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/03/01 PST