Marking Summary

Correcness (55):
        - done by automated marking script
        - the test suite used in the testing is available on the main
          course page.

Testing Strategy (15):
        - In general, the mapping was (15,12,9,6,3,0) -> (t,g,f,p,i,n)
          where t=thorough, g=good, f=fair, p=poor, i=incomplete, n=none
        - The above may not completely apply - in that case, see the
          comments on your paper
        - Make sure you separate the actual test cases and the report.
          The report is meant to be short/concise/enough detail which
          basically outlines what your strategy was, not just your results

Style (15):
        - Comments in RED
        - Just looked at teamRoster and banquetTalk predicates
        - [MOD] Watch your modularity; the solutions give a pretty good
          idea of how to modularize your code - basically, each time you
          need a specific thing done, if it is not completely trivial, or
          done easily, then you should *probably* use a helper to
          modularize your code
        - Marks deducted for missing comments
        - Generally followed the same marking convention as in Testing
          Strategy

Logic & Efficiency (15):
        - Comments in BLUE
        - Just looked at teamRoster and banquetTalk predicates
        - Using = --> (-5) - you can just use the same variable name twice
        - [APP] Using append instead of [Head|REST] to get at elements in
          a list
        - [UN] Creating unnecessary lists or variables (using different
          vars when could be the same)
        - [BR] Breaking apart list when not certain you can (most did this
          in banquetTalk - there only case was assuming there were at
          least 2 people in the list, but it could have been empty)
        - [MC] Missing constraints (ie, by not using playerList) or
          Missing constraints in banquetTalk -- some just checked the
          first against the second but not the second against the third if
          that failed (this is a logical step that should have been used).
        - [BC] Missing base cases (or unnecessary base cases - eg.
          checking for empty list as base case for banquetTalk, and then
          using playerList, which has a basecase which takes care of this)

General:
        - There were stylistic, logical, and efficient ways to do things,
          but having one predicate that checks for all the players in all
          the positions (for teamRoster) was in general, not rewarded (if
          you had 6,7,8,... rules) - however, it could still be elegantly
          done in this sort of way, and you received full marks for this,
          but I think the solns provide the best way to do this.
        - When trying to figure out where you lost marks, find the letter
          (g,f, etc), which gives you a preliminary mark based on codes,
          then look for further deductions.  eg, if on Logic/Effic. you
          got a [G], but used "=", you really got 12-5=7.