[racket] HtDP Exercise 32.3.2

Correct! Good planning. -- Matthias



On Aug 15, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Racket Noob wrote:

> But, if I choose your second approach (function that picks and returns one of the feasible configurations), than such function cannot be used in next exercise 32.3.3 in which I have to construct function solitaire for solving a puzzle. 
> 
> From: racketnoob at hotmail.com
> To: matthias at ccs.neu.edu
> Subject: RE: [racket] HtDP Exercise 32.3.2
> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:04:13 +0200
> 
> But, if I choose your second approach (function that picks and returns one of the feasible configurations), than such function cannot be used in next exercise 32.3.3 in which I have to construct function solitaire for solving a puzzle. 
> 
> Subject: Re: [racket] HtDP Exercise 32.3.2
> From: matthias at ccs.neu.edu
> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:21:08 -0400
> CC: users at racket-lang.org
> To: racketnoob at hotmail.com
> 
> 
> On Aug 15, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Racket Noob wrote:
> 
> I don't understand this exercise:
> 
> Exercise 32.3.2.   Develop a function that, given a board and the board position of a peg, determines whether or not the peg can jump. We call such a peg enabled.
> Develop a function that, given a board and the board position of an enabled peg, creates a board that represents the next configuration.
> 
> But, it may be the case that an enabled peg can jump to more than one of free places. Thus, we can have more then one new configurations, no?
> 
> Good catch. Now design a function that returns a list of next configurations for an 'enabled' peg. Alternatively, design a function that picks one of the feasible successor configurations. 
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20110815/ddb6631a/attachment.html>