|Marc Lanctot on Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:41:47 -0700 (MST)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [game-lang] a survey of previous work|
On 07/25/2010 08:52 AM, Simon McGregor wrote:
Does that make any more sense now?
I think you've convinced me of the importance for our cause, yes. I'm still not 100% sure how incorporating these elements will affect the resulting language, but we can tap into these topics again when we get there.
Specifically, from just the game description, I'd like it if an interpreter of the language could, at a minimum:
a) have an AI that can takes random actions, and b) simulate the the game in text-mode.without any game-specific code. For b) I don't necessarily mean have a text-based GUI.. I just mean the ability to have a text-based protocol that could be used by a debugger and/or network client. This protocol would not be part of the language, but part of one implementation of an interpreter.
As long as incorporating these elements doesn't force every implementation to strictly adhere to any "presentational requirements" then I don't see any problems.
Marc _______________________________________________ game-lang mailing list game-lang@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/game-lang