Thanks, Philippe, for your explanation. So my action should have been interpreted as 6/3 rather than 6/5*/3. I think Christian has worked on this sort of thing recently. Perhaps some recent change is the explanation.
Louis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philippe Michel" <[email protected]> To: "Louis P Zulli" <[email protected]> Cc: "Jonathan Kinsey" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 2:50:28 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Handling ambiguous checker moves On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Zulli, Louis P wrote: > I guess I disagree. The program should not be automatically making > choices for the user. (One could include a preference setting that says > "Allow gnubg to interpret ambiguous checker moves" or the like, but that > would be adding yet another optional feature.) Probably the "purest" > solution would be to simply have gnubg reject the move, while popping up > a message such as "Ambiguous checker move." This would force the user to > make a valid play, without providing information as to what the possible > moves are. Another option would be to pop-up a list of valid > interpretations and have the user select the one he wants. This look rather awkward. I agree that gnubg hitting is wrong, but this is because, IMHO, your move was *not* ambiguous : it was the non-hitting play. Now, if there are blots on both intermediate points... FWIW, there used to be a bug in the import routines where it would interpret wrongly such moves and that was dutifully fixed : if 6/3 was a pick and pass, it would be written 6/5*/3. In the "interactive" case, I think the interpretation should be the same : if you want to do something in addition to moving a checker (like picking a blot in the process), you should do it explicitly by dragging the checker in two steps.
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
