Re: [pbmserv-dev] what we need...

[Richard Rognlie <rrognlie@gamerz.net>]

In this case, it was a non-issue.   dzander had me dead to rights
I would have just been wiggling at the end of the rope.

But it's a good idea...  make the move code check for

        "is an undo pending?"

before accepting a move, vs. the current code which doesn't check at all.
(taking the stance that a move is an implicit "reject")

Richard

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:59:24AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> Yes, that's a good point.  I didn't recall that it was the last move of
> the game.
> 
> On Wed, 28 May 2008, Lyman Hurd wrote:
> 
> > Ah yes, but I believe the point is that you cannot "undo" a won game...
> >
> > Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Lyman
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: John Williams <williams@tni.com>
> > To: pbmserv-dev@gamerz.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:46:29 AM
> > Subject: [pbmserv-dev] what we need...
> >
> > > > I was wondering if it would be practical for the game
> > > > engine to "lock out" the next player from making a move until he answers the
> > > > question: "accept or reject?"
> >
> > On the other hand, there is nothing stopping you from UNDO-ing twice.
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
> 	unsubscribe pbmserv-dev@gamerz.net
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
> 

-- 
 /  \__  | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Ninja / Gamerz.NET Lackey
 \__/  \ | http://www.gamerz.net/~rrognlie    <rrognlie at gamerz.net>
 /  \__/ | Creator of pbmserv@gamerz.net
 \__/    |                Helping reduce world productivity since 1994