>How would you get the second sword from a bag ? Or the first ? > > get sword 2 bag > ?? Um... yeah. As far as the first goes... it just wouldn't have a numerical argument afterwards. It would be just: get sword. > I like the idea.. Without actually looking, I would think you could change > the dot code so that instead of looking for a '.', it gets the next word in > the arg and see's if its a number. But again, this is without looking at > the code.. Its not as simple as just changing the find_all_dots() function. Find all dots parses -one- argument. A numerical value after that argument is an entirely new argument. The only solution I can think of is making a new argument in -each- function that uses the dot method. This, however, is not only very inefficient, but a huge pain to implement. > This seems to fit more into the 'proper english' type of playing. You > could go further and say that people have to type > get sword two > -or- > get second sword > > The 2nd case is better, but maybe not what your looking for. > > Then theres: > get second sword from bag Thats all well and good until you have 50 of somthing. Imagine having to type, "get sword thirty seven." Thats not something that would happen often, but I think numbers are a better way to go in either instance. *shrug* Interesting idea though. :) If anyone knows of a better solution to this dotmode stuff, please let me know. Thanks, Chris -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | | Newbie List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circle-newbies/ | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/25/03 PDT