Re: [gnugo-devel] testing the 1-D boardcode: BOARD_OFFSET

[Gunnar Farneback]

Arend wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Daniel Bump wrote:
> > It seems dangerous to define PASS_MOVE to be other than
> > zero. It could be hard to track down all the places where
> > this is assumed.
> >
> > If don't try to define PASS_MOVE to be nonzero, the patch
> > still produces crashes however, the first in reading test 5.
> 
> I'd guess that there are numerous places where PASS_MOVE == POS(-1, -1)
> is assumed.

Yes, PASS_MOVE == POS(-1, -1) is definitely assumed in various places
and there are also many places where NO_MOVE or PASS_MOVE is assumed
to be 0. While it's generally better style to use an explicit NO_MOVE
or PASS_MOVE in such contexts I don't think this is a real problem. I
suggest not using the patch.

/Gunnar