Bernard Desgraupes <bdesgraupes@easyconnect.fr> wrote:
>> A switch to turn that off would put the script in the position
>> of a player, ...
> Yes I'll add such a switch, it sounds fair.
thanks :-)
> When I implement more "human" reduction techniques, I'll be able to
> "rate" the sudokus, ...
yeah, that would be pretty cool!
>> I'm not sure, if I could make up a sudoku that really
>> would require that trick. Most likely such a sudoku
>> would then actually have more than one solution.
> ... but, if I understand correctly, the trick does not apply when there
> are multiple solution.
Yes :-) It might then conceal any number (between one and all)
of possible solutions.
Should I ever happen to find a sudoku, that is uniquely solveable,
where this trick helps but the other standard tricks don't, I'll
do my best to let you know... (e.g. if, in 30 years, the newsgroups
still exist, I'll post it here... :-))
> My bad. I'm developping sudokut on my iBook under a local cvs (and this
> iBook is never connected to the net). So, when I upload files to
> SourceForge (which I do from another machine)all these revision
> numbers get messy. I think I shouldn't be using the $Revision$ keyword
> at all.
Don't worry. Now, that it's in sf, the release numbers should remain
consistent from now on, even when you check in another copy from your
local cvs. If you ever intend to feed sf-versions back to your local
cvs, just use an appropriate -k... option (the one that restores the
checked-in values), and you'll never see anything but your local
numbering. Anyway, remember not to start mentioning CVS-version
strings in other files...
Received on Sun Dec 11 13:53:47 2005