Quote:
Originally Posted by Uleat
Kunark has a bit value of 1 and a bitmask of 1.
|
Kunark would be the oddity. I hadn't considered it, since Kunark didn't have any AA availability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uleat
However, look at what is being considered: CanUseAlternateAdvancementRank
Since the transformation reflects a greater than positional value, and there is a 'false' return methodology, you really don't want that condition
to be true for an exclusionary check.
|
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intended message, but since it returns false on a not true, the result from the bitwise & should be true if the AA is to be visible to the player. Using SoL as an example, since I can break the comparison down to just a nibble, we currently have the bitwise & of the expansion bitmask (0100) and the shifted rank->expansion value (1000):
Code:
0100
1000
----
0000
Throwing a not on that then evaluates true and in turn returns false, even though we obviously want SoL AA to be used if SoL is the enabled expansion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uleat
There's a lot of systems that I'm not up-to-speed with - this being one of them.
But, looking at what is defined and what is being checked, I think that particular code snippet is correct. That's not to say that there may not be
issues elsewhere (these guys are pretty sharp and usually catch logic errors pretty quick.)
|
Which snippet do you believe is correct? The one I posted or the one in source. Perhaps the above bit in this reply is wholly unnecessary.