In a message dated 12/19/01 6:53:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tomh_at_po.crl.go.jp writes:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 WKRfresno_at_aol.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> So what's really needed is a spec for the concise format.
That's where I'm trying to steer us all.
> Naturally we
> don't want to do any work on the output side of our programs, :-) so the
> spec should be flexible enough to accomodate a variety of possibilities.
> A standard reader with hooks for outputting different "moves" in internal
> formats might be written.
By far the simplest way of handling this is for every solver to write the
same human/concise formats. I'm not understanding how a machine readable
format could be useful. Although I have written about machine-readable
formats before, I hadn't tried to think about how they could be used.
> > > 6S to 7D
> > > 2S to 3H
> > > 5H to 6S
> > > AD out
> >
> > Now I see how you avoid using column numbers. Using column numbers
appears
> > to be necessary if sequence moves are allowed.
>
> Why? When I say 6S to 7D it _could_ mean that I'm moving a pile, if the
> 6S has cards on it.
But the user would have to look for a column with an S6 somewhere underneath.
Not a practical idea. "-5 7 3" seems much more useful to the casual
freecell player, who must be the focus of the human-readable solutions.
Bill Raymond
Received on Wed Dec 19 2001 - 20:28:13 IST