shevek wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > > >> The ATCK command makes the robot attack another robot at a
> neighbouring
> > > > >> square.
> > > > >
> > > > > What if there is no robot in that square? Is the empty square
> attacked or
> > > > > is there no attack at all? Since attacking costs a turn, there
> is a
> > > > > difference.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, the empty square should be attacked, regardless of whether
> the square
> > > > is actually occupied or not and it takes a turn. Question is
> whether you
> > > > will lose energy attacking an empty square...
> > >
> > > I'd say it would result in dropping the energy on the square, so
> you can
> > > pick it up afterward. This would imply the DROP command becomes
> obsolete.
> >
> > The DROP command can drop a variable amount of energy. An
> > invalid attack costs a fixed amount of energy. Right?
>
> No, both drop and atck have as a parameter the amount of energie to
> use.
> This is the amount you lose. Attacking an empty square would cost you
> energie. My idea is to drop this energie on the neighboring square.
>
> > > This is, IMHO, a good thing. (simlicity)
> >
> > Simplicity is not the same as compactness. By "misusing" constructs
> > to eliminate others, the design does not become simpler.
>
> This is true, but here I think (since you cannot drop on a robot and
> you
> cannot attack an empty square) this is not a problem.
If at some point in time I want to write two robots who can co-operate
it who be nice if robot A could drop energy on B. Kind of a recharge for
the other one.
David Heremans
--
"How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers
are for. I only coded it."
(Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting)
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
