Thanks, Philippe, for your explanation. So my action should have been interpreted as 6/3 rather than 6/5*/3. I think Christian has worked on this sort of thing recently. Perhaps some recent change is the explanation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Michel" <address@hidden>
To: "Louis P Zulli" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Jonathan Kinsey" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 2:50:28 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Handling ambiguous checker moves
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Zulli, Louis P wrote:
> I guess I disagree. The program should not be automatically making
> choices for the user. (One could include a preference setting that says
> "Allow gnubg to interpret ambiguous checker moves" or the like, but that
> would be adding yet another optional feature.) Probably the "purest"
> solution would be to simply have gnubg reject the move, while popping up
> a message such as "Ambiguous checker move." This would force the user to
> make a valid play, without providing information as to what the possible
> moves are. Another option would be to pop-up a list of valid
> interpretations and have the user select the one he wants.
This look rather awkward. I agree that gnubg hitting is wrong, but this is
because, IMHO, your move was *not* ambiguous : it was the non-hitting
play. Now, if there are blots on both intermediate points...
FWIW, there used to be a bug in the import routines where it would
interpret wrongly such moves and that was dutifully fixed : if 6/3 was a
pick and pass, it would be written 6/5*/3.
In the "interactive" case, I think the interpretation should be the same :
if you want to do something in addition to moving a checker (like picking
a blot in the process), you should do it explicitly by dragging the
checker in two steps.