No. It takes processingtime and should only be used if additional checks are necessary. For a simple replacement of 'setStateMachine' better use the AI methods.
This may be a dumb question (as I never new setStateMachine: existed before this thread), but how does setStateMachine: differ from setAITo: ?
It doesn't, they are identical. setStateMachine was never mend to be used in AI, although even 1.65 abusively still used it in some of its own AI's. Every case of setStateMachine can be replaced by setAITo.
But with the new white-listing we probably should link it to setAITo, so also old and wrong code will run?
Somehow that setStatemachine slipped into the Oolite escortAI. Only fixed around 1.70. It is the internal name of the machine that sets the AI states. setAITo calls the same internal function but was mend for public use.
But because it was in an old Oolite file and there are probably a lot escortAI modifications around, it is likely there are a lot oxp's around with this problem. On the whitelist we can relay these old names to legal ones. This way they will keep working.
On the whitelist we can relay these old names to legal ones. This way they will keep working.
That would be useful info for me if it was done - I have found quite a few setStatemachine switches in OSE's inherited AI's, I was about to change them all to, well, looks like setAITo, but if this stuff is whitelisted I can spare me that work.
Could you please tell me if and when a decision is taken on this?
Are depreciations normally listed in the OXP verifier (-verify-oxp optional command line tags)? Just tried to verify a couple of OXPs that I know will need some update for the setPosition/setOrientation changes, and they didn't show.
Is it not something that's supported, or is it just because it's using a trunk compilation rather than a release test version?