Re: [computer-go] GTP and Tourney in SmartGo 1.4

[Arend Bayer <arend.bayer@xxxxxx>]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Michael Reiss wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:02:40 +0200, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> > Nick Wedd wrote:
> >> Insisting on GTP will exclude most competitors, as they don't support
> >> it.  I have heard that it is hard to implement, with two line-feeds
> >> having a different meaning from one line-feed (my personal opinion is
> >> that significant whitespace is a really stupid idea.)
> >
> > Did you even try to look it at GTP before firing up words like "stupid"?
> > Can you explain me why writing
> >
> > printf("= here is my answer\n\n");
> >
> > is more difficult than writing
> >
> > printf("= here is my answer\n");
> >
> > huh?
>
> Two things,
>
> Firstly there is the issue of DOS/Windows "translated mode" where \n gets
> translated into \r\n pairs... I don't know if this will be happening in
> this case, but I'd rather not have to worry about it at all.

"\r" has to be ignored when parsing responses according to GTP spec. So
I don't see how you have to worry about that (or worry about it less
than in any possible cross-platform protocol).

> Another thing I don't like about GTP is the fact that the controller does
> not have to wait for an answer before sending its next message. I see no
> merit in this. It simply makes debugging harder.

There is certainly merit in that you can do
	gnugo --mode gtp <testfile.tst
for having gnugo run through all the test cases written into
testfile.tst. And I don't see how it makes debugging harder, rather to
the contrary: It means that when an error occurs, you can just log all
the output sent by the controller to a file log.gtp, and then run
	gnugo --mode gtp <log.gtp
to reproduce it.

So I don't quite see your points.

Arend





_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go