«

On 15/02/2013 13:11, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 11:36, Tim Golden <> wrote:
>> And the "how shall we represent the board?" question is pretty
>> much the first thing any team asks themselves. And you always
>> get someone in favour of lists of lists, someone for one long
>> list,
>
> I always get confused when doing this about which of my coordinates
> needs to be multiplied (i.e. whether I am in Fortran or C order).

How true. This last time, my team split into two: one half
to handle the display, the other working on the algorithm. We
ended up having to draw a really simple diagram on the back of
an envelope with the x,y pairs written out and pass it back
and forth as *everyone* kept forgetting which went first.

>> (Also I seem to remember that the OP was advised earlier precisely
>> to abandon lists of lists in favour of something else).
>
> Actually the suggestion was for the list of lists (instead of a flat list).

Ah, ok. I'd only followed the thread casually. (And I was too lazy to
go back and check).

TJG

Tim Golden writes:
> On 15/02/2013 13:11, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> > On 15 February 2013 11:36, Tim Golden wrote:
> >> And the "how shall we represent the board?" question is pretty
> >> much the first thing any team asks themselves. And you always get
> >> someone in favour of lists of lists, someone for one long list,
> >
> > I always get confused when doing this about which of my
> > coordinates needs to be multiplied (i.e. whether I am in Fortran
> > or C order).
>
> How true. This last time, my team split into two: one half to handle
> the display, the other working on the algorithm. We ended up having
> to draw a really simple diagram on the back of an envelope with the
> x,y pairs written out and pass it back and forth as *everyone* kept
> forgetting which went first.

Surely you knew to have f1(board, x, y) for getting whatever is at
(x,y) and f2(store, x, y, wev) for putting wev at (x,y). Why didn't
you do that?