| Author |
Message |
Jens Markmann (Jensm)
| | Posted on Thursday, September 07, 2000 - 7:20 am: | |
I suggest that move priorities should be more flexible. Specifically:
1) (move-priorities (type1 type2) type3) should mean type1 and type2 have the same priority.
2) When a type is not on the priority list, it should always be generated, and not be affected by priorities.
3) It should be configurable whether priorities apply to partial moves. Currently, it seems they don't. |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2001 - 4:52 pm: | |
I totally agree
(move-priorities (type1 type2) type3)
is a very desirable feature! |
|