So, I was reading a bit about continuations the other day, and, since I've been thinking about good ways of expressing chess strategies in Haskell, I thought that I'd play around a bit with something like continuations for game-playing strategies. The idea is that you have combinators that allow you full access to the strategies which remain to be applied. In this way, strategies can "activate" and "de-activate" other strategies. Here's a simple little toy app for Tic-Tac-Toe (Naughts and Crosses):
http://codepad.org/nN9JsxFK You can run main on 'example', and see that it searches every line and fails. And, as you can see, it aborts after finding a win in example2. This would be easily extensible to say things like "if you've seen a blocking move, and you don't have a win, then play the blocking move", and of course the other deep intricacies of the game. My question is, is this, in fact, related to continuations somehow? Could continuations simplify it? Or am I doing something completely different?
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
