I would like to also point out that we CAN have a very complete set without it being "big" and involved or difficult to implement. A set was already sketched out that is very small, but makes it possible to design a full featured user interface.
By "full featured" I mean just all the basics, saving and loading games, positions, setting levels, taking back moves etc. Almost any highly advanced features can be composed by a user interface if we have the minimal support that I am asking for. Also, I don't want to be forced to add my own non-standard commands just to be able to do something really as basic and simple as taking back moves. How lame is that?
Don
From: Daniel Bump bump@match.stanford.edu Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1714
I wrote:
I would give one reason for having a "minimal command set" which is that doing so is a big step towards standardization. But I have't reviewed the arguments against it. I'm travelling now and not reading my e-mail as carefully as I usually do.
Sorry, I wrote this too quickly. Going back and reading Don's message, I see that he is arguing against a proposed partitioning of a standard set of commands into a minimal set and a full set on the grounds that this would encourage nonstandard implementations.
With this in mind, my comment is wrong. Everyone is in agreement that the aim should be standardization, and I can see his point.
OK, Dan Dailey has convinced me. I will no longer speak in any way of a "minimal command set". Version 3 of my goals document instead calls it a "tournament command set", the plan being that if you want to use GTP for tournaments, you *must* implement all these commands, but all others are optional for tournament play. Do other people see this as a good change? It seems that most people who spoke of a minimal command set really meant "a command set if you just want to set up games and play them", but that seems still too vague, so I think "tournament command set" is a better way to put it. Dan, are you satisfied with this change? Or do you still have issues with having a subset of the commands being given different priority in this way?
I assumed that the last sentence was addressed to me but that "Dan" seems to be a typo. You were addressing this to Don Dailey.
Dan
_______________________________________________ gtp mailing list gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/gtp