About copy-pastes - not sure what exactly you're referring to, but I think people are tolerant because not everybody is a pain in the
assneck, but anyways, that's beside the point...
Max mtg wrote:why not to just reverse-sort the CardEdition[] sets array here?
It looks like just reverse-sorting it is not going to cut it (I tried when I first began to implement this and ended up not going for it because some of the draft combination cases worked not as expected: if you just reverse-sort the array, then pushing sets[0]/sets[1]/sets[1] in the inverted order (essentially sets[1]/sets[0]/sets[0]) is not the same as the expected sets[1]/sets[1]/sets[0], and similar to that there are other cases which differ somewhat more substantially than just the sort order. In practice for a two-set block you get e.g. Eventide/Shadowmoor/Shadowmoor on a reverse sorted array instead of the expected Shadowmoor/Shadowmoor/Eventide. A similar but worse issue happens with a 3-set block, where you get the wrong set on a triple draft (e.g. triple Ice Age will show Coldsnap/Coldsnap/Coldsnap instead of the expected Ice Age/Ice Age/Ice Age because sets[2] will be Coldsnap instead of Ice Age when the array of sets is reverse-sorted). Maybe I do misunderstand the math though, or maybe you meant some other form of sorting, like I said, so if you feel you know how to make it look better while making sure it functions the same, be my guest to take a whack at it, you were always pretty good at clean code (something, as you know and can see, I'm still not exactly good at
). Or just tell me more specifically what a better option might be, I can try to fix my implementation accordingly - I may not be a clean coder yet but I'm trying to improve with every opportunity
- Agetian
Posted: 28 Jan 2015, 13:40