RE: [Idea] Adding the concept of 'IT' for object commands

From: Daniel Koepke (
Date: 02/01/97

On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Gary Barnett wrote:

> Maybe the word THEM could equal all.IT .. that would seem to cover all
> the bases, no?

Well, generally, no , it wouldn't cover all the bases, as normally,
things like "gauntlets" are implemented as just one object, even though
they are actually two.

> Eventually I want to integrate a parser at least as intelligent as the old Infocom games,
> Zork, Planetfall, Sorcerer, et al. This is more of a long term project, as it will require
> a complete intepreter rewrite. If anyone has done this for Circle, and are interested in
> sharing your wisdom, I'd like to hear from you!

It's been a really long time since I've played Zork or any other
Infocom text adventurer.  What was so special about the interpreter?
I do remember the commas and "and" linking, eg:

  > get the apple, the sandwich, and the lunch bag

That would probably require a new function like generic_find to support
that, or a rewrite of the existing generic_find().

Daniel Koepke
Forgive me father, for I am sin.

| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
|   |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST