Well, I think that we may need commands where the machines can announce to each other what command sets they support. Once that is done, each machine will announce what command sets they intend to use for that session. Maybe something like:

begin_command_sets_available tournament player_to_player end_command_sets_available begin_command_sets_used tournament end_command_sets_used

or:

begin_command_sets_available tournament player_to_player end_command_sets_available session_rejected

if the machine does not wish to continue.

Alan

-----Original Message----- From: Gunnar Farnebäck [mailto:gunnar@lysator.liu.se] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 4:39 PM To: gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [gtp] GTP Specification-Draft

Alan wrote:

...

I was wondering if there's a clear consensus on command

sets. What I mean

...

by that is, has everyone bought in on the idea of having

named command sets

...

that are accepted or rejected during an initial command negotiation?

Initial command negotiation?

...

If it's felt to be not a good idea, fine; I feel that both Don and I have said our piece. However, if you like it, then I have some comments on the draft.

I think it will be necessary to partition the command set into a number of subsets for different application areas. While tournament and server play has about the same needs, regression testing and gui applications are quite different. To take the popular example of undo this is marginally important in the first case, mostly pointless in the second case, and quite important in the last case.

/Gunnar _______________________________________________ gtp mailing list gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/gtp