Currently we are using the same number for identifying players and numbering them. For now this works out nicely, but with the player number rotations we do assume that player numbers are consecutive and start at 0. This is the case and will probably stay the case, but it is rather an implementation detail than desired behaviour. That is, we probably want to do away with PlayerIds as numbers, and make them opaque tokens. The current role of PlayerId in the planetwars rules would then be taken by a transparent PlayerNum struct, which is analogous to the PlayerId we have now.
So, PlayerId is for identifying players when communicating with the framework, PlayerNum is something internal to planetwars. Are these names confusing or is this fine?
iasoon
commented
6 years ago
Currently we are using the same number for identifying players and numbering them. For now this works out nicely, but with the player number rotations we do assume that player numbers are consecutive and start at 0. This is the case and will probably stay the case, but it is rather an implementation detail than desired behaviour. That is, we probably want to do away with PlayerIds as numbers, and make them opaque tokens. The current role of PlayerId in the planetwars rules would then be taken by a transparent PlayerNum struct, which is analogous to the PlayerId we have now.
So, PlayerId is for identifying players when communicating with the framework, PlayerNum is something internal to planetwars. Are these names confusing or is this fine?