Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
nethack.allison
e063031f00 digging conjoined pits follow-up (trunk only)
Pat Rankin wrote:
>      Isn't an array of booleans overkill?  A single byte bitmap
> could achieve the same result.
2006-03-25 18:59:53 +00:00
nethack.allison
6ef8efcefb digging conjoined pits (trunk only)
This one turned out to be more effort than I had
originally anticipated.

We had a bug report requesting that zapping a wand of digging
laterally while in a pit should dig beside you. That seemed
like a reasonable enough request, but this ended up with
the following results:
- needed to check where this should not be permitted, or at
  least where there should be special-case code because there is
  something such as furniture on the surface above the dig
  point.
- now tracks conjoined pits through new fields in the trap
  structure, hence the pathlevel increment. The array of
  8 boolean values represents each of the 8 directions
  around a pit.
- Previously, pits could be adjacent to each other as two
  individual pits, in which case moving between them
  results in a fall as you went into the next pit. That
  behavior is preserved.
- Pits created either by zapping a wand of digging
  laterally while in a pit, or by "clearing debris"
  between two adjacent pits via a pick-axe, sets the
  conjoined fields for those two pits. You cannot
  create a brand new adjacent pit via pick-axe, only
  with the wand.
- The hero can pass between conjoined pits without
  falling.
- dighole() was hijacked for adjacent pit digging,
  so the ability to pass coordinates to it and
  its downstream functions was added (dig_up_grave()
  for example). dighole() does pretty much everything
  appropriately for this adjacent digging, more so
  than calling digactualhole() directly.
- moving into a conjoined pit that has spikes still
  does damage, but less so that "falling" into the
  spiked pit, and you "step on" the spikes rather
  than falling into them.
- Not done: should pits with the conjoined fields
  set be referred to as 'trenches' rather than pits
  in messages and identifications?
2006-03-19 23:59:03 +00:00
nethack.allison
c146fe012d housekeeping: mark trunk sources 3.5 (include) 2005-01-02 16:50:12 +00:00
nethack.allison
06528d1002 3.3.2 to 3.4.0 2002-02-04 16:06:00 +00:00
jwalz
f23c4439ce *** empty log message *** 2002-01-05 21:05:48 +00:00