"I hope you agree that it hardly matters for the intuitive understanding whether one would write F&R, F-R, [F-R] or [F,R]. " >> Yes,of course;
"With W[F-R] there is little doubt that the W is a separate move" >> I fully agree
"And how would you know that in N&$R 'outward' would mean 'in the direction of the long component'? " >> Not sure what you mean by long. The "R" part? I don't see what the problem is, it is not easy by messages. "Outward" for me means the move is always in the direction of going away from the starting square both in x and y. If after the first leg, the second leg starts by going to a square that is closer to starting square either in x or y than the intermediate square (between the two legs), then it is not outward on that definition.
"Is F&fR really any less intuitive than F&$R ?" >> no no it is not. Don't misunderstand me.I was just using these 2 characters & and $ just for the example and to avoid to select 2 true letters and thus choose the wrong ones. You can replace them by any letter or character.
" I think it would be a mistake to judge a description system solely on how well it does on a single piece that you happen to use, but is not very common, and even less representative for the general problem" >> I fully agree. This is a must.
"how can we describe the Mao then?" >> Again I agree with you, I don't know.
I was not proposing a new system, I was just trying to answer your question to me by making a thought to fuel the discussion, but of course I don't pretend to have solve this very difficult issue. I do rely on you and other skilled people in that matter.
I also have the feeling that maybe it would necessary to introduce more symbols.
Thanks HG.
"I hope you agree that it hardly matters for the intuitive understanding whether one would write F&R, F-R, [F-R] or [F,R]. " >> Yes,of course;
"With W[F-R] there is little doubt that the W is a separate move" >> I fully agree
"And how would you know that in N&$R 'outward' would mean 'in the direction of the long component'? " >> Not sure what you mean by long. The "R" part? I don't see what the problem is, it is not easy by messages. "Outward" for me means the move is always in the direction of going away from the starting square both in x and y. If after the first leg, the second leg starts by going to a square that is closer to starting square either in x or y than the intermediate square (between the two legs), then it is not outward on that definition.
"Is F&fR really any less intuitive than F&$R ?" >> no no it is not. Don't misunderstand me.I was just using these 2 characters & and $ just for the example and to avoid to select 2 true letters and thus choose the wrong ones. You can replace them by any letter or character.
" I think it would be a mistake to judge a description system solely on how well it does on a single piece that you happen to use, but is not very common, and even less representative for the general problem" >> I fully agree. This is a must.
"how can we describe the Mao then?" >> Again I agree with you, I don't know.
I was not proposing a new system, I was just trying to answer your question to me by making a thought to fuel the discussion, but of course I don't pretend to have solve this very difficult issue. I do rely on you and other skilled people in that matter.
I also have the feeling that maybe it would necessary to introduce more symbols.