Subject: MN: Fosdyke Notation

From: "Wayper, Paul" <WayperP@p...>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:28:11 +1000

People,

I'd love to start putting Fosdyke codes in for Actions, but the logical
place for them is in the table of 1.7.2 and there's simply no longer enough
room for that to fit in eighty characters AFAICS. The options I can see
are:

* Make the table a separate Volume in HTML format that is kept as a table on
the MorNomic pages.
* Squeeze the columns up a little for the extra characters (four would be
average).
* Put them in the Rule itself.

On the whole I'm rather keen on the idea that each Action Rule includes the
Action Table entry, as this is a much neater way of specifying what it
costs, what it gains, what restrictions are placed on it and so forth. But
it's always a little inconvenient to read the table for a rule, then page
down to the rule, then have to page up to find out how long it takes or
whether it's Neutral, Pre or Post. Maybe a list format like:

[Shunting <Player> to <Station>]
Phase:	Postmove
Dur:	0:10
Cost:	-1Re
FR:	Player {S0,L0} <Player>, Player {L0,S=LV} <Station>

or:

[Blue to Gold]
Phase:	Neut
Dur:	None
Cost:	-2Bu
Gain:	+1Go
FR:	Player {S0,L0} Bank

or:

[Blocking <Station>]
Phase:	Post
Dur:	10
Cost:	-1Re
FR:	Player {S1} <Station>

Incidentally, {L0,S=LV} may be easier to interpret than L0S=LV (or even
S=LVL0). Fix?

Enjoy,

Paul Wayper -- DPI ITS Computer Systems Officer
_____________________________________________________________________
SigClean 1.5a prevents all errors in transcription, transmission, and
reception of eMail, destroys sig and email viruses, and stops flames.
Report all bugs to the author. SigClean is FreeWare. (c) 1998-9 PJW

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/l-nomic-d
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications

---

From: Dunx <dunx@l...>
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 00:05:43 +0100

At 17:28 02/06/99 +1000, PaulWay wrote:

>room for that to fit in eighty characters AFAICS.

The lack of room in the table is actually one of the things which stopped me
putting this in as a suggestion in the original Proposal.

>The options I can see

Hmm... no. Too hard to maintain (not so much the separate volume part, more
the different file format business)

>* Squeeze the columns up a little for the extra characters (four would be

This is better. I think we could probably save a lot of space by making the
Action descriptions shorter. There doesn't seem to be any real need for the
table to contain the precise syntax, just sufficient to identify the Action.

For instance -
[Late Arrival from <Place>] could be just [Late Arrival]
[Claiming a <Token Colour> Token from <Station>] could be [Claiming Token]

Also, do we really need the square brackets in the Action table? They add no
value - square brackets delimit an Action in the GSD, but by definition any
text in that column is an Action.

>FR:	Player {S0,L0} <Player>, Player {L0,S=LV} <Station>

I don't have a problem with this - there is the issue with duplication, though.

One of the reasons for putting the token costs into the table (and only the
table) in the first place was to make the table the definitive reference and
thus to minimise the amount that has to be edited when a cost is to change.

>Incidentally, {L0,S=LV} may be easier to interpret than L0S=LV (or even

It is a lot easier to read, isn't it?

Hmm...

--
Dunx
Ceci n'est pas un .sig