I don't really have anything to critique, merely observe... ;) I find your implementation interesting because you chose to use two dimensional arrays to represent the board, I initially went down that road with mine but in the end went with a single list because I found it easier to handle the individual sequences of moves, and the application of a successful move was a single replace call on the board to replace the affected pieces.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, you traverse the entire board to locate legal moves for the player, given you know the calculations required to move in each direction, wouldn't it be simply to start from the desired move and determine the valid moves that way? Different strokes for different folks, obviously, but just seems unnecessary. :) Probably disappointing but I don't have too much to say... since our implementations are actually surprisingly similar, the differences seem to come from how we structured the board and everything that stems from that. I won't speak to writing 'idiomatic Clojure' as my code can attest. :P Nice work ! -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
