The best solution would have been to add some extra flag directly in base headers to keep track of these settings, but it's too late now, given that v4 is out. Concerning the auto-opening of bases, you just have to put this in a script : ./scid base.si3 for example.
Pascal 2010/1/2 Gerd Lorscheid <[email protected]> > Hello, > > > > it is useless to save settings for base 1 or base 2, but why not save them > for the file system path of the database. So they are reused when the > database is opened again. This brings me back to the point that it would be > helpful if scid is able to reopen databases at startup automatically. It > should also remember which of them had been opened in tree mode. It would > save a lot of clicks at each startup, because I have a reference database, > one with my games, one with my analysis… > > > > Gerd > > > > > > *Von:* Pascal Georges [mailto:[email protected]] > *Gesendet:* Samstag, 2. Januar 2010 09:15 > *An:* Joost 't Hart > *Cc:* Scid Users List > *Betreff:* Re: [Scid-users] Scid 4.1 > > > > > > 2010/1/1 Joost 't Hart <[email protected]> > > Pascal Georges wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I wish you a happy new year, everybody. > > > > I will release Scid 4.1 very soon : are there any comments, bugs, > > pending translations ? > > > > Pascal > > Hi Pascal, very same to you! > > Yes. > > 1) I have this pending issue on tree options not being stored (posted on > dec 23rd) > > > Each base has its own options set. If base 1 has set mode to "slow", base 2 > has set mode to "fast and slow", I doubt the user will reopen the next time > the bases in the same order, hence the saving of options is confusing. Same > thing for the cache : it does not make sense to always save the cache, > because you don't want to fill it with second order lines. It the options > were global (the same for all opened bases), this would have made sense but > not in that case. > > > 2) Another minor thing: If you opt to comment all moves during > annotation and the evaluation of the best and played move goes down > (compared to evaluation during the previous ply due to horizon effect in > engine), this move is annotated with (e.g.) ?! > This does not make sense. I think a ??, ?, ?! should only be given for > moves that are thought not to be the best moves. > > > If the engine made a wrong evaluation due to horizon effect, the only real > solution is to analyze backwards, which is still a pending work. > > Pascal > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community > Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support > A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and > easy > Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Scid-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ Scid-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
