"Simon Kröçer" <SimonKroeger / gmx.de> wrote in message 
news:43862881.10605 / gmx.de...
Reinder Verlinde wrote:

> In article <4385BB50.5000408 / gmx.de>,
>  Simon Kröçer <SimonKroeger / gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>>The best way to help and keep me motivated would be to post some cool
>>bots here (along with the bug-reports and feature requests)
>
>
> It looks cool. Now only if I could find time to write a bot or series of 
> bots...

Would make me happy too :)

> Here is a tiny bug report/feature request. The first I did was:
>
>     ruby rrobots.rb SittingDuck.rb NervousDuck.rb
>
> result:
>
>     Error loading SittingDuck.rb!
>     usage: rrobots.rb <FirstRobotClassName> <SecondRobotClassName>
>             the names of the rb files have to match the class names of
>             the robots e.g. 'ruby rrobots.rb SittingDuck NervousDuck'
>
> This is easily corrected, but I think the code c/should be smart enough to 
> notice that the '.rb' extensions already are there (with tab completion, 
> typing the '.rb' is easier than not typing it)

Ok, will be in the next release.

> I also have the first security breach to report. I do not think you intend 
> that the following should be valid inside a robot:
>
>     @battlefield.robots.each do |other|
>       puts "robot #{other}: x #{other.x}, y #{other.y}"
>     end
>
> If a robot can do that, the radar seems extremely limited.

Robots are distributed as source code (i don't see another way anyway)
so nobody would want to compete against such a bot.
(You can search ObjectSpace and find the other robot, setting his energy
to -1, easy victory but without honour)
Maybe there is a way to protect against such strategies i didn't thought
of, any ideas?

> Reinder

cheers

Simon