From: "Cabrera, Alan" adc@multex.com

So what's the point in partitioning the commands into all these sets? Why not just have two buckets, required and optional?

I think it's safe to view all these commands as optional.

Don

-----Original Message----- From: Phil Garcia [mailto:PhilippGarcia@Home.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 8:46 PM To: gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [gtp] GTP Specification-Draft

The help command will return a list of implemented commands.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Cabrera, Alan" adc@multex.com To: "'Gunnar Farnebäck'" gunnar@lysator.liu.se; gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 5:22 PM Subject: RE: [gtp] GTP Specification-Draft

...

From: Gunnar Farnebäck [mailto:gunnar@lysator.liu.se]

Alan wrote:

...

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:

I don't see the need for this.

So when do two programs discover when a command set is not supported?

...

...

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.

And this is just plain ugly.

Ugly in what way? The actual commands or the idea itself?

Alan

---

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

---

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

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