Open eriktorbjorn opened 5 years ago
I think the reason you can put things in the disks is that they have a CAPACITY
, while the globe doesn't.
I can't see that "PUT object ON DISK" checks for capacity, so maybe removing the capacity from the disks would have the same effect there? I haven't tried it.
On the other hand, there is a special case for if the disks are inside each other:
>DROP RED DISK
The red disk drops to the ground. There is an almost inaudible click as it comes
to rest.
>PUT BLUE DISK IN RED DISK
Done.
>STAND ON RED DISK
There is a loud click as you step on the disk, and then a moment of
disorientation.
There is a tremendous explosion as the disk tries to transport the other disk
into itself. You are, unfortunately, intimately part of the explosion.
**** You have died ****
But it still seems strange to me...
In this example, the red disk is on the ground and I'm holding the blue disk.
So the outcome of putting objects in or on the disk is the same, but there are different messages for it. It gets worse.
Now, I agree that "PUT object ON DISK" is the correct syntax here. But since the outcome of both "PUT ON" and "PUT IN" is to move the object to the disk, they should perhaps be handled the same way?
And it should be easy to do, too. The default action for "PUT ON" is to simply redirect it to "PUT":
So simply checking for
PUT
instead ofPUT-ON
inDISK-FCN
should be ok.There are only three cases in the game where it checks for
PUT-ON
and notPUT
. Two of them are inDISK-FCN
, and one is inFF-FCN
.I don't know if
FF-FCN
needs fixing. There don't seem to be any bad side effects to that one: