In a message dated 12/18/01 6:16:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tomh_at_po.crl.go.jp writes:
> > 01 S6 1 7 11 C4 6 7 21 S9 6 5 31 CT 2 8 41 D6 5 h
> > 02 S2 1 5 12 S8 6 1 22 -2 1 3 32 SJ 2 6 42 -2 1 5
> > 03 H5 1 7 13 H3 5 7 23 -3 8 5 33 DT 2 6 43 -3 4 8
> etc.
>
> This would be more machine readable if it were one move per line.
This example was not intended to be machine readable. It is only for a
freecell user to follow easily as she plays out a game.
One move per line does not make a printed solution more machine readable; it
just makes the program that reads the solution a bit simpler with fewer
loops. In my never-humble opinion, several moves per line gives a big
advantage because the entire solution can usually fit onto a screen.
> Also, since you don't count automoves any program reading this would have
> to know what the automove rules are. That could be added to the format
> with a single
>
> # horne
>
> comment at the top, or, by just making them explicit in the solution.
My original letter contained the complete printed solution with the word
"HORNE" on the second line.
> That could also be done by another program that converts solutions from
> one format to another.
In my ideal world there would be just two formats: concise machine readable,
human readable. Every solver would be able to read the first one, produce
both. A program that converts solutions from one format to another would
rarely be necessary. If MK needs all solutions on his site to be concise for
reasons of space, he could provide the human readable form of a single
solution in response to a click.
> My own solution, by the way, is:
> 6S to 7D
> 2S to 3H
> 5H to 6S
> AD out
> 5S to 6H
> AS out
> 2S out
> 3S out
> 4S out
> 5S out
> AH out
> 9H to empty pile
> 5C to 6H
> 4D to 5C
> 4C to 5H
> ....
Now I see how you avoid using column numbers. Using column numbers appears to
be necessary if sequence moves are allowed.
BR
Received on Wed Dec 19 2001 - 12:23:19 IST