And a very good day to you, too :-)
>No, both drop and atck have as a parameter the amount of energie to use.
Ehm... not yet :-) ATCK is only specified with the direction in which to
attack as parameter. For DROP, no direction is specified - I assumed that
DROP would drop the energy on the position of the robot. When a robot
would MOVE to a square which contains an energy packet, it would be scooped
up automagically.
So: what do we do? Take a fixed amount of energy for attacking or define
an extra parameter for it? Is the DROP as I specified now ok, or should a
parameter be included for the direction?
> 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.
I'd say the energy is used by yourself for the attack and will thus disappear.
The fact that there's no robot at the other side to receive the damage caused
by your attack is a matter of bad luck and lousy programming :-)
[ATCK = DROP?]
> 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. Perhaps the name of
> the command should be changed to use,
Hm, USE instead of ATCK is something I could imagine, but DROP and USE
sound too different to me...
> or both names should be valid for the same command...
NO!!!! Giving one and the same thing two or more different names, is the
fastest path to confusion...
Eric
****
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/)
****
