Subject: MN: Re: Sv: Fosdyke Notation

From: riffraff@n... (RiffRaff)
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 04:04:13 -0500

>Dunx wrote:
>:
>:>* Squeeze the columns up a little for the extra characters (four would be
>:>average).
>:
>: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]
>:
>
>
>That would limt the GSD's usefulness in reconstructing the game, I guess.

I'm guessing that we'd still use the full versions for the GSD; the shorter
forms would be just for the Action Table

--Riff

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

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

---

From: Dunx <dunx@l...>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 11:00:10 +0100

>forms would be just for the Action Table

Spot on. Actually using the Actions requires the full form described in a
Rule, but we could get away with a much more minimalist description in the
Action table.

Either that, or we could split Action syntax across multiple lines; that's
already had to be done in many cases.

--
Dunx
Ceci n'est pas un .sig