Requested documentation improvement
Currently missing from the documentation is a single point which describes the basic assumptions and conventions in the conceptual model Gambit uses for games. Examples of this are our take on outcomes (they may be shared among nodes or contingencies, and can also be associated with nonterminal nodes), and our conventions for labels (where they are required and what constitutes a valid label).
These are generally cases where there are variations in how these ideas are communicated in game theory, and we are choosing one convention within our codebase.
This knowledge is scattered implicitly across the documentation (some in pygambit, some in the GUI, and so on); we should have a single point of reference for these basic conventions and definitions.
Requested documentation improvement
Currently missing from the documentation is a single point which describes the basic assumptions and conventions in the conceptual model Gambit uses for games. Examples of this are our take on outcomes (they may be shared among nodes or contingencies, and can also be associated with nonterminal nodes), and our conventions for labels (where they are required and what constitutes a valid label).
These are generally cases where there are variations in how these ideas are communicated in game theory, and we are choosing one convention within our codebase.
This knowledge is scattered implicitly across the documentation (some in
pygambit, some in the GUI, and so on); we should have a single point of reference for these basic conventions and definitions.