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. Perhaps the name of
the command should be changed to use, or both names should be valid for
the same command...
Bye,
shevek
****
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/)
****
