>FINGERPRINT CUP
There don't seem to be an fingerprints on the cup.
>ANALYZE CUP
Sergeant Duffy walks up as quietly as a mouse. He takes the cup from you. "I'll
return soon with the results," he says, and leaves as silently as he entered.
>WAIT FOR DUFFY
Sergeant Duffy appears before you, holding the cup carefully in his hands. His
quiet efficiency and youthful vigor impress you quite a bit. "The cup," he
begins, "contains a trace of tea. The fingerprints are those of Mr. Robner."
With that, he leaves, handing you the cup as he whisks away.
It is now 9:06 am
You could argue that well, the fingerprints weren't visible to the naked eye. But the Lab Report for the cup is included with the game, so you should already know that there are fingerprints on it.
On the other hand, it seems deliberate because this is what it says in CUP-F:
(<VERB? FINGERPRINT>
<TELL
"There don't seem to be any fingerprints on the cup." CR>)
So it's not some default message gone awry. On the third hand, this is what it says in I-FINGERPRINT:
<COND (<NOT ,ANALYSIS-OBJ>
<TELL "\"The fingerprints,\" he begins,
\"belong to ">
<COND (<==? ,FINGERPRINT-OBJ ,CUP>
<TELL "Mr. Robner">)
(<EQUAL? ,FINGERPRINT-OBJ ,SAUCER ,SUGAR-BOWL>
<TELL "Mr. Robner and Ms. Dunbar">)>)
So there is a case there for fingerprinting the cup.
This strikes me as slightly inconsistent:
You could argue that well, the fingerprints weren't visible to the naked eye. But the Lab Report for the cup is included with the game, so you should already know that there are fingerprints on it.
On the other hand, it seems deliberate because this is what it says in
CUP-F:So it's not some default message gone awry. On the third hand, this is what it says in
I-FINGERPRINT:So there is a case there for fingerprinting the cup.