maujp@warwick.ac.uk (S Shipway) (12/03/88)
-- Dyslexics of the world untie.. (munch,munch)
First, in reply to David Goodenough's (dg@lakart.UUCP) question - I
haven't recieved any mail from you, it must have been eaten by the net
somewhere on the way over. I haven't a 'validation suite' , but but provided
the objects keep the same priority ( boulders, arrows, balloons ) then a
correctly designed screen should always work. Where it starts to change is
when you get large numbers of 'hanging' bouldes or arrows - you'll just have
to make your own test screen for that Im afraid...
Scondly, Troy Saville (evh@vax1.acs.udel.EDU) - I mailed you the sources
twice, once via uucp and once via ARPA. I know the latter was mangled by the
net, but didn't the uucp one get through?
Thirldy, it has been brought to my attention that the score should be saved
as an int, rather than as a short else you get problems when you have a
massive score. The necessary change is so small theres no point in posting
a diff for it, just alter the struct in save.c and thats about it.
Lastly: There must be SOMEONE out there who designes screens, surely the art
cannot be restricted to Warwick University, the Netherlands, and two people in
America? Send me your screens (even if they are dreadful), preferably with
a solution. To get this, use 'tee soln | wanderer' and then solve the screen.
-----------------------------------------+------------------------------------
JANET: maujp@uk.ac.warwick.cu |#include <disclaimer.h>
ARPA: maujp@cu.warwick.ac.uk | I am really an AI program
BITNET: maujp%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL |#include <quote.h>
UUCP: maujp%uk.ac.warwick.cu@ukc.uucp | "I hate you, Monday!" -Garfield
...!mcvax!ukc!warwick!maujp +------------------------------------
SNAIL: Maths dept., University of Warwick, Coventry.
LOCAL: "Hey, Steve!" ... or even maujp@orchid if you've lost your voice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------evh@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Troy Saville) (12/04/88)
No the source didn't get through via uucp. Why don't you post it here. That 'diff' code just doesn't cut it.
casey@bayes.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (12/20/88)
| From: maujp@warwick.ac.uk (S Shipway) | | It has been brought to my attention that the score should be saved as an | int, rather than as a short else you get problems when you have a massive | score. The necessary change is so small theres no point in posting a diff | for it, just alter the struct in save.c and thats about it. Even though I don't care about this program at all, though I don't even have a copy, or the time to port it even if I did, I can't let this pass: ``You should use an "int" rather than a "short" so the score won't overflow when you get large scores???!?!??!??'' What is this??! Institutionalized brain damage???!!? AN "int" IS NOT NECESSARILY LARGER THAN A "short"!!! C has enough portability problems as it is without people ENCOURAGING old VAX-minded idiocy like that. Sorry. I feel better now. We now return you to the more rational world of game bug fixes, suggestions, etc. Casey
evh@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Troy Saville) (12/21/88)
About changing the save struct score variable from short to int: In article <14811@lll-winken.llnl.gov> casey@lll-crg.llnl.gov.UUCP (Casey Leedom) writes: > > Even though I don't care about this program at all, though I don't even >have a copy, or the time to port it even if I did, I can't let this pass: >``You should use an "int" rather than a "short" so the score won't overflow >when you get large scores???!?!??!??'' What is this??! Institutionalized >brain damage???!!? AN "int" IS NOT NECESSARILY LARGER THAN A "short"!!! >C has enough portability problems as it is without people ENCOURAGING old >VAX-minded idiocy like that. > > Sorry. I feel better now. We now return you to the more rational >world of game bug fixes, suggestions, etc. > >Casey I think you should think before you talk. K&R C says that an int is greater than or equal to the size of a short(dependent on the system being used). So if it isn't equal, then there is a portability problem isn't there???(slow down, you might have to think about this...). So go back to your own bloody idiocy. Its people like you who write code that is neither portable and modular because they are in to much of a #$%$^%#^$% hurry to think before they do. So get with the program private casey.
casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (12/22/88)
| From: evh@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Troy Saville) | | I think you should think before you talk. K&R C says that an int is | greater than or equal to the size of a short (dependent on the system | being used). So if it isn't equal, then there is a portability problem | isn't there??? (slow down, you might have to think about this...). You're right, I probably shouldn't have bothered sending that letter off. It's at times like this that I wish I maintained an outgoing mail queue. Someone else sent me a letter privately saying nearly the same thin and I sent him a long and reasoned response. I just don't have the energy to go into that much detail right now, so I'll offer the encapsulated version. K&R says (guarantees): sizeof(char) <= sizeof(short) <= sizeof(int) <= sizeof(long) with only those assumptions it's basically impossible to write anything portably because you have no idea how large a number you can store in any of the integral types. One of the things which has made C as portable as it is is the implicitly agreed upon, but illegitimate further assumption that: sizeof(char) == 8-bits sizeof(short) == 16-bits sizeof(long) == 32-bits and sizeof(int) == sizeof(short) or sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) These are hackneied assumptions to enable people to make some assumptions about how large a value they can store reliably in the various integral types. These give you sizeof(char) < sizeof(short) == sizeof(int) < sizeof(long) or sizeof(char) < sizeof(short) < sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) A much better approach would be for the programmer to declare what range of values the type needed to hold and let the compiler pick the appropriate machine type, but we're dealing with C and the real world here. In this particular case, my bitching was without point because xwanderer will probably never be ported to a machine where sizeof(int) == sizeof(short) (PDP-11s, 8086, etc.) What I'm really objecting to is the cavalier attitude involved in the original statement as to the capabilities of the type "int". Back in the Bad Old Days of the PDP-11, code was rife with the assumption that sizeof(int) == sizeof(short). Then the Young Turks on Vaxes came around and started spreading their seed about and it was full of sizeof(int) == sizeof(long). Because of the various problems that both these styles caused, we've tried to be more careful of recent. Basically, if we're going to have to live with our implicit, but unblessed assumptions about the sizes of char's, short's, and long's, we should be careful to use int's only where we know that the maximum values expected to be stored can fit in a short (16-bits). In those cases, we use short's when we're concerned with memory, and int's when we're concerned with performance (many 32-bit CPUs suffer significant performance loss for various operations when having to deal with short's). In the end, hopefully C will die a quiet death and a language will rise up to replace it that doesn't suffer these problems. In any case, sorry for the original posting and it's tone. It neither fit this group, nor was the tone productive. But do please try to be more careful with your assumptions about C. C is bad enough as it is without making it worse. Casey
kevin@perle.UUCP (Kevin Pickard) (02/08/89)
munch! munch! munch!
I have tried to send the following screen to Steve
Shipway a number of times but his site (yes "warwick") keeps
bouncing it. I am therefore posting it here in the hopes
that he will eventually see it. Other "wanderer" hacks may
also want to try the screen.
Please note that if anyone wants to reply to this post-
ing they should use the Email path listed at the end of the
article. Our news feeder site is currently dead and we can
only post through our mail site. Hence only mail reaches us
currently.
In article <65@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> Steve writes:
>
> [...bulk of article deleted...]
>
> Lastly: There must be SOMEONE out there who designes screens, surely the art
>cannot be restricted to Warwick University, the Netherlands, and two people in
>America? Send me your screens (even if they are dreadful), preferably with
>a solution. To get this, use 'tee soln | wanderer' and then solve the screen.
>
Well at least one person here in Canada designs screens
(or at least makes an attempt :-). The following is my
first attempt at a screen for the great (and I mean that)
game of "wanderer".
------------------cut here-------------------
****!**/ O O< * M#
O***!*/ O<O*O*O * #
*O**! * *< O<<*#
O*O* *!*!* * / > *#
O / >> > > / *#
O / O @ ::::====#
/ <*< * S#
/ \ < / * #
* > \ \ / / * #
* > === ====#
> * ***#
> <========= > \ + /==== :==#
= <=*O*>>>> + / :::#
<=****=== \ / /: *<<<#
======*=**=::: \ /::: * #
::X*:::: <=:::: /::::: *S #
########################################
------------------cut here-------------------
I have installed this screen here on our system and
some of the local users are trying it out. None have solved
it yet. It does have a solution and I have the equivalent
of a "tee" file to prove it. I will send that off to you
later (if you wish) after you have had a try at the screen
yourself :-).
(Note : Due to mailer problems part of the above
statement is now false. Two of the local
users have now solved this screen)
This screen was written to run under the original ver-
sion of "wanderer" that was released under comp.sorces.games
(v05i002: wanderer - mini rogue-like adventure game (2
Parts)). I kept it simple so it should run on later ver-
sions as well.
Speaking of later versions, we received a patch here
for version 2 of "wanderer" but we never received the ver-
sion 2 source. Could you possibly send a copy of it this
way (or point me at a local copy)?
Also could you explain what happened to the screen
numbers? The original version we received came with 13
screens (the last of which we have yet to solve). On the
net, though, I have seen talk referring to screens up to 20.
On top of that, there have been references to a screen 13
that looks nothing like the one we have. Our screen 13
looks like this.
------------------cut here-------------------
OOO#*# @
OOO:*# -
T::::# O O O O O O: -
###\O# /: =========O= -
S : >: \ : : -
/ \ # ++++++++++ -
S >>>>/ O # +========+ -
\ #< +# O+ -
S : \ +#A######+ -
S S S S S S S S S:<<< +# #+ -
S S################### +###### #+ -
S S S S S S S S S# +#OOOOO #+ -
S # +#X:::: #+ -
!*!*!*!******!*!*!*! # +========+ -
S ++++++++++ -
S S S S S S S S S S S -
########################################
------------------cut here-------------------
Do you have a master list of screens available and if
so could you bounce it this way? Note that we may not be on
the master set of maps yet so please reply using the path
below.
Any help with any of these would be greatly appreciated.
--
----------- ~~~~~~~ ----------------------------------------------------------
| o o | Kevin Pickard
| . | UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!perle!kevin
-------^^^-----------^^^------------------------------------------------------billr@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Bill Randle) (02/15/89)
Steve's complete set of 49 screens has just been posted to comp.sources.games. -Bill Randle Moderator, comp.sources.games Tektronix, Inc. games@saab.CNA.TEK.COM
rjd@occrsh.ATT.COM (Randy_Davis) (02/16/89)
In article <3616@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> billr@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Bill Randle) writes: |Steve's complete set of 49 screens has just been posted to comp.sources.games. Yeah, got'em... I notice in the comments of part 1 of 2 that the balloons have been implemented. I saw some of the patches go by that were to add balloons, yet when I started seeing the bug reports, I decided to not implement the balloon patches until everything was thrashed out. So... If anybody has the complete source WITH the balloon modifications added (and it works), could you drop me a message or send them to me? I *thought* there was going to be a repost of the source once all the bugs were worked out of the balloon additions, but I never saw it. BTW: For a 3B2 running Unix System V release 2.0.4 (yeah - I'll upgrade someday....) Advance thanks, Randy Davis UUCP: ...(att!)ocrjd!randy ...(att!)occrsh!rjd