Save/resume fail test coverage -- test works in Docker now

[open-adventure.git] / notes.adoc

diff --git a/notes.adoc b/notes.adoc
index fd3504a6f2ce68a4d62668690e3b4542f0cf070e..75c2333375275de6032624803ed92f26757160c8 100644 (file)
--- a/notes.adoc
+++ b/notes.adoc
@@ -73,6 +73,9 @@ necessarily pretty ugly by modern standards. Encryption and
 checksumming have been discarded - it's pointless to try
 tamper-proofing saves when everyone has the source code.
 
+A -r command-line been added. When it is given (with a file
+path argument) it is functionally equivalent to RESTORE command.
+
 == Translation ==
 
 The 2.5 code was a mechanical C translation of a FORTRAN original.
@@ -82,7 +85,7 @@ ugly and quite unreadable.
 Jason Ninneman and I have moved it to what is almost, but not quite,
 idiomatic modern C.  We refactored the right way, checking correctness
 against a comprehensive test suite that we built first and verified
-with coverage tools (we have 88% coverage, with the remaining 12%
+with coverage tools (we have over 90% coverage, with the remaining
 confined to exception cases that are difficult to reach). This is
 what you are running when you do "make check".
 
@@ -114,9 +117,9 @@ ways:
   and the choice to refrain will make forward translation into future
   languages easier.
 
-* There are a few gotos left that resist restructuring; all of these
-  are in the principal command interpreter function implementing its
-  state machine.
+* There are a few gotos left that resist restructuring; all are in the
+  principal command interpreter function implementing its state
+  machine.
 
 * Linked lists (for objects at a location) are implemented using an array
   of link indices. This is a surviving FORTRANism that is quite unlike
@@ -124,9 +127,6 @@ ways:
   to fix it because doing so would (a) be quite difficult, and (b)
   compromise forward-portability to other languages.
 
-* The code still has an unfortunately high density of magic numbers - in
-  particular, numeric object IDs.  There are plans to fix this.
-
 * Much of the code still uses FORTRAN-style uppercase names.
 
 * The code still assumes one-origin array indexing.  Thus, arrays are