+1 On top, using the same code grants that gnubg and the python function will represent the same move in the same manner. Always.
MaX. On 25 October 2012 22:35, Michael Petch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-10-25 14:30, Guido Flohr wrote: >> >> Maybe buggy, maybe inefficient, but I still like my function. ;) >> > > I don't see why GNUBG would want to reinvent the wheel for functionality > it possesses but doesn't expose to Python directly. Regarding Python and > the tuple to string issue it really comes down to creating a thin > wrapper around existing functionality that already exists in our code. > > -- > Michael Petch > CApp::Sysware Consulting Ltd. > OpenPGP FingerPrint=D81C 6A0D 987E 7DA5 3219 6715 466A 2ACE 5CAE 3304 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
