[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
1060: Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: "Chris Gray" <cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 22:01:25 MST
Organization: Kanga.Nu
[Shawn H:]
:So far, I haven't thought up a case where any of the verbs on indirect
:objects will matter in my model: saying 'fill flask with water' only
:means that an item with water in it must be present in the immediate
:vicinity, but how the water in that item gets into the flask doesn't use
:the verbs on the item. I approach it from the character's PoV, where
:the character's verbs are checked first, then the direct object's verbs
:are checked, then room. As of yet, I've been unable to come up with a
:sensible case where there would be real confusion with respect to verb
:scope. I'm pretty sure, though, that more than two heads can come up
:with a case that wrecks all of this :)
Just took a quick scan through my main verbs. Ok, so I'm not totally
consistent! :-) Here's one for you: take <object> from <container>
It seems to me that the order of the checks should roughly be the
order that they would be physically encountered in real life:
playerA [got hands, not paralyzed, etc.]
direct object [not glued down or something]
indirect object (container) [opening big enough, etc.]
room [no stasis field, etc.]
playerB [able to hold the object]
For put <object> into <container> they would be:
playerA
playerB ?
direct object [could be "cursed"]
room
container
--
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA