posted by AceHack

C

PS: Fixed!

posted by Charles

It is possible that the search might be improved by using the heuristic of working near the known frontier first, with iterative deepening in number of steps considered, instead of demanding a complete answer (solved/contradiction) for each randomly picked point (sure looks like exponential explosion there).

Our goal is to add more knowns to the grid, so we need not pursue guesses which still hasn't produced a definitive determination one way or the other after some threshold number of steps - better abort in the middle and try another guess, in hopes it'll produce its answer fairly quickly, and the new known thus found may well lead to a cascade of new knowns to be found semi-automatically (i.e. with extend/(n-1) projection/surround moves which are very easy to make).

posted by Will_Ness

Also I would like to hear about test driven development (TDD) for C++. I used C++/C++CLI/NUnit to leverage all testing goodies at managed side. But it is not a portable solution.

posted by tivadj

Your "5:5 goes RT (if were UP => NO_ROOM("3"))" is what my guessing, teamed up with confinement analysis, determines. I don't know how to implement that any more efficiently. (If you do, I encourage you to try!)

> It is possible that the search might be improved by using the heuristic
> of working near the known frontier first, with iterative deepening in number of steps considered

Agreed. My guessing is expensive because it amplifies the amount of other expensive analysis (mainly confinement) that's run.

> instead of demanding a complete answer (solved/contradiction) for each randomly picked point (sure looks like exponential explosion there).

It's not exponential, because guesses can result in "I'm stumped, guess another cell".

[tivadj]
> Also I would like to hear about test driven development (TDD) for C++.

Sorry, I don't know anything about TDD.

posted by STL

3 hours ago, STL wrote

[Will_Ness]
> ... only using some limited, localized what-if analysis

Your "5:5 goes RT (if were UP => NO_ROOM("3"))" is what my guessing, teamed up with confinement analysis, determines. I don't know how to implement that any more efficiently. (If you do, I encourage you to try!)

> It is possible that the search might be improved by using the heuristic
> of working near the known frontier first, with iterative deepening in number of steps considered

Agreed. My guessing is expensive because it amplifies the amount of other expensive analysis (mainly confinement) that's run.

yes, "localized what-if analysis" is of course guessing - limited by the virtue of being performed by a human with very limited backtracking capacity. Not being able to keep in mind more than a few moves is what I refer to "localized" here (closeness to frontier), and is what forces me to consider only very shallow moves - what the iterative deepening would achieve, which would suspend (not abort) expensive solve() computation(s) in progress. Or you could use a good scheduler for a massively parallel solution that would run all of them at once, to take care of that automagically.

I've since seen more puzzle examples, on "puzzle-nurikabe dot com", where unfortunately the initial frontier expansion stops very early on, and extensive guesswork is unavoidable. There another heuristic sometimes works wonders, which I'm having troubles formalizing - painting all the (remaining) cells initially black, and expanding the islands from there, trying "to get away with as much as possible" guided by square condition mostly, at first, and then trying to push a few cells around to correct the problems which appear.

posted by Will_Ness

The way to implement that would be to make many Grid copies, and call solve() on each of them in succession. You could modify solve() so that you could instruct it to perform only cheap analysis.

posted by STL

BTW, I would really appreciate if enumerated types were true compile-type sets of values in C++, with expressions like (wrapping) increments (++e), (--e), (limits<e>) (this one would require compiler magic because builtin types only have min and max as library definitions) and (e = dynamic_cast <Enum> (07)) throwing bad_cast.  Of course, these features can be simulated with TMP, but it takes a lot to write such code (and, even worse, to read it).

posted by giecrilj71pl

Yes.  It's perfectly valid, because I'm using an explicitly specified underlying type.  N3126 7.2 [dcl.enum]/7 says: "For an enumeration whose underlying type is fixed, the values of the enumeration are the values of the underlying type."

I started doing this when I noticed that I was manipulating states and coordinates everywhere, and I didn't want to confuse them. By making State an enum, I can't pass an int (like a coordinate) to a function taking a State.

> BTW, I would really appreciate if enumerated types were true compile-type sets of values in C++, with expressions like (wrapping) increments (++e), (--e), (limits<e>)

Constants can't be modified, especially compile-time constants, so incrementing and decrementing wouldn't make any sense.

With C++0x type traits, you can request the underlying type of an enum, and then determine its limits.

posted by STL

But I'd better recommend to learn Modern C++. Wow!! it's Fantastic.

posted by Spetum