Re: Inform: Is it possible to "show" without "take"ing?


7 Nov 1995 18:07:59 GMT

In article <47li3o$207@yarrow.csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
Andrew Clover <esuzm@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul O'Brian (obrian@ucsu.colorado.edu) wrote:
>
>> However, anytime the player tries to show this body part to someone, the
>> parser generates a "take" action first
>
> This is because the grammar line for "Show" says:
>
> * held "to" creature
>
> so the parser is being clever and making sure you're holding what you want
>to show. You need to extend the grammar to allow things that are in scope but
>not held to be shown:
>
> extend "show" first
> * creature noun -> ShowR
> * noun "to" creature -> Show;
>
> Alternatively, you could have a 'body part' class and scope definition so
>that you can show things that're either carried or part of the body.

This is an excellent solution for one verb. However, you may want to
do more things to your body parts than showing them to people.

Funny coincidence, but in the game I'm currently writing, the player
should be able to refer to her feet and other body parts. For
technical reasons, they aren't held, but are in a separate object
that's put into scope by the player object. I don't want to have to change
the grammar for every verb to avoid things like

> give foot to troll
(First taking your foot)
That's hardly portable.

Even though the command "give foot to troll" is silly, it shouldn't
produce an even sillier answer.

This (and similar things, like the response to "give up" in Magic
Toyshop) makes me wonder whether the convenient design decision to
automatically take objects matched by "held" but not actually carried
shouldn't be considered a bug rather than a feature.

Magnus