[Crawl-ref-discuss] commit r7781, Artificer

[Eino K. <ein...@gm...>]

> +Artificers:
> +-----------
> +The Artificer is attuned to gadgets, mechanics, and magic elicited from arcane
> +items as opposed to casting magic himself.  As a consequence, he enters the
> +Dungeon with an assortment of wands. Artificers are skilled at Evoking magical

I propose making this in plural, so it becomes gender-nonspecific:

Artificers are attuned to gadgets, mechanics, and magic elicited from arcane
items as opposed to casting magic themselves. As a consequence, they enter
the Dungeon with an assortment of wands.

> @@ -2856,6 +2874,9 @@
>         set_ident_type( OBJ_POTIONS, POT_POISON, ID_KNOWN_TYPE );
>         break;
>
> +    case JOB_ARTIFICER:
> +        set_ident_type( OBJ_SCROLLS, SCR_RECHARGING, ID_KNOWN_TYPE );
> +
>     default:
>         break;
>     }

Even though the JOB_ARTIFICER falls through to default (and break),
should there be a break; in the case itself to reduce potential of
oversight later on if another class is added? I might be overtly
cautious, though. :)

>Log Message:
>-----------
>Use an explicit (int) cast for _gold_to_donation. That should fix
>Eino's compile time warning. :)

Hehe, thanks. :)

--Eino