On 10/13/07, anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Follow-up Comment #3, sr #105877 (project gnugo): > > You cannot be serious with that closing comment. The concept of a GNU Go worm > is totally undefined in the GTP spec and it would be silly to use it in the > specification instead of the simple and clear concept of a string as a set of > stones connected by direct adjacency.
If you have a problem with the wording of the spec, I suggest that you write some alternative wording and raise the issue on the GTP mailing list, rather than berate software authors for interpreting an unclear passage in a different manner to yourself. cheers stuart _______________________________________________ gnugo-devel mailing list gnugo-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel
