Talk:Maze generation: Difference between revisions
My recommendations
No edit summary |
(My recommendations) |
||
Line 3:
:Agreed. I also don't see the need to dictate a special algorithm. Its suitasbility might well depend on the language. --[[User:Abu|Abu]] 14:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
:You are right about the large examples. I reduced the size to just 6 lines. --[[User:Abu|Abu]] 14:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
:I recommend:
:* Specifying a maze dimension, depending on output format. If it's going to be ASCII art, make it, e.g. 40x30. If it's going to be a raster image that can be embedded, make it 640x480. (Actually, for the ASCII art, I'd suggest using whatever the terminal size was for old 40-column-wide terminals.)
:* Required that the algorithm used be identified, if possible. ("freestyle/homegrown" is an option, of course.)
:* As/when the page gets excessively, split into per-algorithm subtasks, so the particular algorithms can be compared.
:* As the subtasks again get large, split each examples' output into a separate page.
:* If example ''code'' is large, break the code out to its own subpage, as is done with tasks like [[RCBF]].
:I think that will allow the task to grow, and offers a reasonable balance of comparison, example freedom and page size along the way. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
| |||