On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Trying to define an obvious concept here, does recursion work, can
> > this be written better?
> >
> > A golem can either have a Boss, be Emancipated, or be in Storage.
> >
> > If a golem has no owner, or (through circularity of ownership)
> > owns itself, it is Emancipated. Otherwise:
> > 1. If a golem's owner is a first-class person, that person
> > is the golem's Boss; otherwise,
> > 2. If the golem's owner is an Emancipated golem or a non-golem,
> > then the golem is in Storage; otherwise,
> > 3. the golem's owner's Boss is the golem's Boss.
>
> If I may make a suggestion:
>
> {A golem's first guardian (if any) is its owner. A golem's nth
> guardian (if any), for n greater than 1, is the owner of its (n-1)st
> guardian.
>
> If a golem has no owner, or has itself as a guardian, it is
> Emancipated. If a golem is not Emancipated, but has an Emancipated
> golem as a guardian, it is in Storage. If a golem has a first-class
> player as a guardian, that player is the golem's Boss.}
I like the phrasing. One difference: Golem ownership isn't restricted.
A golem can be transferred to a ruble, for example. If the ownership
chain is:
F.C. person -> Ruble -> Golem
then my version stops at "Ruble" ("non-golem") and calls the golem in
Storage. Your version sees all the way through to "Boss". But also
if the chain is Lost&Found -> Ruble -> Golem then yours makes it
undefined.
I suppose desired behavior depends on what I'm using this for. I think
"In storage" is a little more appropriate because once the golem is
owned by the Ruble, the F.C. person can't get at it (because there's
no way to act-on-behalf of a ruble).
-G.
