Table of Contents | Actions > Action Results
Prev: Overview     Next: Messages    

Action Results

As mentioned at the end of the previous section, the most common way to customize the results of actions in the adv3Lite library is to override the appropriate methods on the direct object and, where applicable, indirect object of the action in question. Each method corresponds to one stage of the action. The stages (with a brief explanation of the purpose of each) are:

These stages are defined in methods whose name is made up of the name of the stage, plus either Dobj (on the direct object of the command) or Iobj(on the indirect object of the command) followed by the name of the action. For example the method names corresponding to the stages listed above on the direct object of a Take action would be called:

Normally, though, we don’t use these names explicitly but use the dobjFor and iobjFor propertyset macros to write definitions that look like this:

    dobjFor(Take)
    {
       verify() { ... }
       preCond() { ... }
       check() { ... }
       action() { ... }
       report() { ... }
       remap() { ... }
    }

Note, however, that so far as the TADS 3 compiler is concerned, the two
ways of defining these methods have exactly the same meaning. We use the
second method because it's usually easier and clearer. Note also that we
don't normally need to define every stage; for most actions on most
objects it's normally sufficient just to define two or three of these
stages.

We can now proceed to consider each of these stages in more detail.

## <span id="verify">Verify</span>

The Verify stage has two purposes:

1.  To help the parser decide which is the best choice of object for a
    command (in cases of ambiguity).
2.  To prevent an action going ahead if it is obviously inappropriate,
    and in that case to explain why it has been prevented.

This may be alternatively expressed by saying that the job of the verify
stage is to rule out illogical actions and to help the parser make the
most logical choice; these two tasks are clearly related, which is why
they are handled by the same stage.

For example, suppose the player types the command TAKE BALL when there
are three balls in scope: a small red ball which the player is already
carrying, a blue plastic ball lying on the ground, and a large
ornamental stone ball attached to a stone parapet. Which ball is the
player most likely to have meant? The red ball can't currently be taken,
because the player character is already holding in; the stone ball can
never be taken, because it's fixed to the parapet and would in any case
be too heavy to lift; so the player must presumably have intended the
blue ball. In this case the parser would therefore select the blue ball
and the TAKE action would go ahead.

Now consider the same scenario but without the blue ball; only the red
ball (held by the player character) and the immovable stone ball are
present. Which should the parser choose when the player types TAKE BALL?
You might think that since neither can be taken the parser should simply
give up and ask the player to disambiguate (i.e. state which ball s/he
meant), but that is precisely what the verify stage is trying to
minimize. An alternative approach is to reckon that since the stone ball
can never be taken, but the red ball could have been taken under
different circumstances, the red ball is the more logical choice; the
player could never have imagined that the great stone ball could ever be
takeable, but it's possible s/he forget s/he was already carrying the
red ball. So in this case ther parser would choose the red ball but
display a message explaining that it can't be taken while it's already
held.

The code to achieve this might (in outline) look something like this:



    stoneBall: Thing 'stone ball; huge large ornamental'
      isFixed = true
      
      dobjFor(Take)
      {  
         verify() { illogical('The stone ball is firmly fixed to the parapet. '); }
      }
    ;

    redBall: Thing 'red ball; small'
      dobjFor(Take)
      {
         verify()
         {
           if(isDirectlyIn(gActor))
             illogicalNow('You are already carrying the red ball. ');
         }
      }
    ;

Notice the use of the illogicalNow() macro here; this means that the action might be illogical under certain circumstance — it’s illogical now if the red ball is already directly in (i.e. carried by) the actor — but under other circumstances it might be perfectly logical and the action could proceed. (Note, adv3 would use illogicalAlready here, but adv3Lite makes no distinction between illogicalAlready and illogicalNow and uses illogicalNow for both). This makes it less illogical that some things that are always illogical (like taking the great stone ball).

Note also what we mean by logical here; we don’t mean logical primarily from the perspective of the game mechanics (what will actually work) but logical primarily from the perspective of the player, what the player is most likely to expect to work. The intention is to help the parser read the player’s mind when s/he enters an ambiguous command, and then, at a second stage, rule out clearly impossible actions.

There really are two stages rolled into one here, for the verify() method may actually be run twice during command execution. It is first run by the parser when matching objects to the command the player typed. The object with the highest score is selected, and only if there’s a tie (as might be the case if both the red ball and the blue ball were lying on the ground available to be taken, for example) will the parser issue a disambiguation prompt asking the player to state which object s/he meant. If the object is selected for the command, the verify routine is run a second time by the action to check whether the action can proceed with this object, and if it can’t, the appropriate failure message will then be displayed.

The previous paragraph spoke of the object with the highest score. The parser calculates the score of an object by calling scoreObjects() on the action. It is this routine that uses the verify stage to assign a score, assigned according to the logical rank the verify stage comes up with. The default logical rank (for an empty verify routine which does nothing, which means that the action is perfectly okay to proceed) is a score of 100. A logical rank of 150 would be a particularly good fit for the action proposed. A logical rank of 70 would mean that the action was possible with this object but not such a good fit (examining an unobtrusive background decoration object, say, when a far more prominent match is also available). A logical rank of 50 or less means that the action is illogical, the lower the rank meaning the more illogical it is.

The adv3Lite library currently just uses the logical rank returned by the verify routine as the match score. Note that the Mercury parser, which adv3Lite uses, allows for further tweaking of the match score through the scoreObject() methods of both the action and the object concerned. At the moment the adv3Lite library uses these methods only to take the vocabLikelihood into account, but in principle game authors could make use of them to make further adjustments or override the outcome of the logical ranking altogether (although this is not recommended). It is possible that future versions of adv3Lite may take advantage of these methods to provide game authors with further hooks to adjust the way the score is calculated, so game authors should be aware that there may be some adjustments in this area in the future. These adjustments will not, however, discuss the basic principles or indeed the details of how the verify stage should be used and what it’s for; at most they will may simply provide means for further tweaking.

Verify routines can make use of the following macros to define verify results:

Where the msg parameter is specified above it in each case refers to the message to be displayed to the player to explain why the action cannot go ahead (if indeed it can’t). In the examples given above this was shown as a single-quoted string, which is indeed perfectly legal, but in the adv3Lite library it is always expressed as a property (e.g. cannotTakeMsg) which is a property defined on the object in question. Part of the reason for this is to make it easy for game authors to customize these refusal messages: if you want something less generic than ‘The stone ball is fixed in place’ you can simply override the cannotTakeMsg property on the stoneBall object; you don’t have to override the entire verifyDobjTake() method. Either way, however, the verification macro must receive a single-quoted string value, and never a double-quoted string; both illogical("{I} {can\\t} wash that."} and cannotWashMsg = "{I} {can\\t} wash that." would be programming errors that can be guaranteed to produce strange and unwanted results. (The explanation of the bits in curly braces like ‘{I} {can\t}’ will be covered later in the section on messages).

Note that your verify routines should contain nothing but one or more of the macros listed above and the conditional (if) statement needed to define when they apply (and, possibly, some code to calculate local variables for use by the conditional statements). In particular verify routines should not display anything (via say() statements or double-quoted strings) nor should they change the game state.

Note also that it’s perfectly okay for the logic of your verify routine to result in more than one of the logical/illogical macros being executed. The library will simply use the one that has the lowest logical rank (on the assumption that if it is applicable at all, it trumps all the rest). The verify result with the lowest logical rank is stored in a table, where it can be replaced by a verify result with an even lower logical rank, if one is encountered, and where its corresponding failure message can be accessed if and when the time comes to display it.

When we’re writing verify routines for TIActions (such as TakeFrom or DigWith) it’s sometimes useful for the verify routine on one object of the action to know what the other object involved in the action will be. The library uses the resolveIobjFirst property of each TIAction to determine which object should be resolved first, generally choosing the more helpful order (so that the object that most needs to know what the other object will be is resolved second.

Occasionally, though, it can be helpful for both objects’ verify routines to know what the other object involved in the action will be (as is the case with TakeFrom, for example). In such cases the macros gVerifyDobj and gVerifyIobj should always be used instead of gDobj and gIobj (since there’s always a risk that these won’t have been assigned values yet, leading to potential nil object reference run-time errors). The macros gVerifyDobj and gVerifyIobj evaluate to gDobj or gIobj respectively if these are non-nil, but otherwise use the values of the first item in the gTentativeDobj/gTentativeIobj list.

The macros gTentativeDobj and gTentativeIobj can also be helpful. These produce the lists of objects that the current Command is considering as possible direct and indirect objects. They can be used in the verify routines of TIActions in place of gDobj and gIobj when it would be helpful to know the complete lists of what the other object might turn out to be before it has been fully resolved. Note that unlike the similarly named macros in adv3, these ones do actually results in lists of actual objects, not npMatches or the like.

The macros gTentativeDobjIn(lst) and gTentativeIobjIn(lst) should normally be used in verify routines to test whether the list lst has any items in common with gTentativeDobj and gTentativeIobj respectively (these macros evaluate to true if so or nil otherwise).

For example, the library defines the following handling of the TakeFrom action on the indirect object:

    iobjFor(TakeFrom)
        {
            preCond = [touchObj]
            
            verify()       
            {          
                /*We're a poor choice of indirect object if there's nothing in us */
                if(notionalContents.countWhich({x: !x.isFixed}) == 0)
                    logicalRank(70);
                
                /* 
                 *   We're also a poor choice if none of the tentative direct
                 *   objects is in our list of notional contents
                 */
                if(gTentativeDobj.overlapsWith(notionalContents) == nil)
                    logicalRank(80);        
            
            }      
        }

This could also have been written (with exactly the same meaning and effect):

    iobjFor(TakeFrom)
        {
            preCond = [touchObj]
            
            verify()       
            {          
                /*We're a poor choice of indirect object if there's nothing in us */
                if(notionalContents.countWhich({x: !x.isFixed}) == 0)
                    logicalRank(70);
                
                /* 
                 *   We're also a poor choice if none of the tentative direct
                 *   objects is in our list of notional contents
                 */
                if(gTentativeDobjIn(notionalContents) == nil) //using the macro instead of spelling out what it does
                    logicalRank(80);        
            
            }      
        }

Note that the library is set up to minimize the number of verify routines you need to override. For example, the action handling for Dig and DigWith is defined like this:

     /* Most things are not suitable for digging in*/
        isDiggable = nil
        
        dobjFor(Dig)
        {
            preCond = [touchObj]
            verify() 
            {
                if(!isDiggable)
                   illogical(cannotDigMsg); 
            }
        }
        
        /* Most objects aren't suitable digging instruments */
        canDigWithMe = nil
        
        dobjFor(DigWith)
        {
            preCond = [touchObj]
            verify() 
            {
                if(!isDiggable)
                   illogical(cannotDigMsg); 
            }
        }
            
        iobjFor(DigWith)
        {
            preCond = [objHeld]
            verify() 
            { 
                if(!canDigWithMe)
                   illogical(cannotDigWithMsg); 
                
                if(gDobj == self)
                    illogicalSelf(cannotDigWithSelfMsg);
            }
        }
        
        cannotDigMsg = BMsg(cannot dig, '{I} {can\'t} dig there. ')
        cannotDigWithMsg = BMsg(cannot dig with, '{I} {can\'t} dig anything with
            {that iobj}. ')
        cannotDigWithSelfMsg = BMsg(cannot dig with self, '{I} {can\'t} dig {the
            dobj} with {itself dobj}. ')

This means that instead of having to override the verify methods of things you want to dig or dig with to make the commands possible, you can simply define isDiggable = true or canDigWithMe = true as appropriate (and preventing using something to dig itself is still automatically taken care of). The name pattern isXXXable for the direct object and canXXXPrepMe for the indirect object when the corresponding actions are XXX and XXXPrep are used fairly consistently, as are the names of the corresponding cannotXXXMsg, cannotXXXPrepMsg and cannotXXXPrepSelfMsg properties, to make it relatively simple to work out which properties you might want to override. The main exceptions are the doubling of the final consonant where normal spelling would seem to require it for properties like isDiggable and isCuttable, and the use of the more idiomatic isEdible in place of isEatable, the use of the canXXXPrepMe form where this reads more naturally than isXXXPrepable (e.g. canSitOnMe is used in preference to the rather awkward isSitOnable). If in doubt you can consult the list given in the Action Reference (which may also be useful if you need to check the name of the action), but the property names in fact follow a largely consistent scheme:

  1. For a two-object (TIAction) action (such as FooPrep) the property controlling success or failure in the verify routine on the direct object is always isFooable, and on the indirect object is always canFooPrepMe (except for PushTravel actions, which are really compound actions combining Pushing and Traveling, and so follow slightly different rules; see below).
  2. For a single-object (TAction, TopicTAction or LiteralTAction) action the property controlling success of failure in the verify routine of the direct object is always isFooable if the action name does not contain a preposition (such as Take) or canFooPrepMe if the action name does contain a preposition (such as SitOn), provided the preposition would normally precede the direct object (e.g. SIT IN CHAIR). Two apparent exceptions are canSetMeTo and canTurnMeTo, but here the preposition would normally come after the direct object (e.g. TURN DIAL TO 7, not TURN TO DIAL 7); the rule is that the Me in the property name comes where the direct object would come in the corresponding command.
  3. There are one or two exceptions where it wouldn’t make sense to define a whole lot of properties for similar actions. The main one of these is the canPushTravel property which allows or disallows the whole set of PushTravel actions on the direct object, and the abbreviated property names on the indirect objects for some PushTravel actions (such as cannotPushDownMsg rather than cannotPushTravelClimbDownMsg, which would be strictly consistent but unpleasantly cumbersome). Since the various PushTravel actions combine pushing with travelling, the verification properties on the indirect object of a PushTravel command are those for travelling via the object; e.g. the indirect object of PushTravelClimbDown checks canClimbDownMe, not canPushTravelClimbDownMe. The other exception is the absence of any properties like canAskMeAbout on Thing, since all conversational commands are ruled out unconditionally on Thing, and all use the common failure message cannotTalkToMsg.
  4. Apart from the exceptions noted above, most of the message properties follow the scheme already described in the paragraph preceeding this list.

The default values of these properties in the library generally depend on what seems to be the most likely common case. Thus, for example, few things can be used to burn or cut other things with, and probably most game objects won’t be suitable for burning or cutting, so isBurnable, isCuttable, canBurnWithMe and canCutWithMe are all nil by default. Conversely, just about anything can be the target of a throw, so the default value of canThrowAtMe is true, while in general we can throw anything that isn’t fixed in place, so that isThrowable is defined as (!isFixed). This incidentally illustrates that some properties define the default value of other properties; isFixed for example is used to determine several such properties such as isTakeable and isMoveable. Similarly, isCloseable is defined as (isOpenable), since one would normally expect something that can be opened to be also something than can be closed (a door or a desk drawer, say). If in doubt, consult the library code in Thing.t (or, for many common cases, the Action Reference) to see how these properties are defined.

Note that changing these other behavioural properties to true doesn’t necessarily make the corresponding action work, in most cases it merely allows the action to proceed to the next stage. It’s up to authors’ game code to define what happens when something is dug or cut or fastened or whatever, since in general the library can’t know how you want these things to work in your game.

When an action fails at the verify stage, the action is stopped but the rest of the turn sequence normally goes ahead, so that, for example, the turn counter is incremented, daemons are executed and so on.Some game authors may, however, prefer that actions that don’t take place because they’re clearly illogical, such as TAKE ME or EAT THE HOUSE, shouldn’t count as turns. The Action property failedActionCountsAsTurn can be overriden to nil, either globally on the Action class, or on individual actions, so that failing an action at the verify stage aborts the rest of the action processing for that turn (so that the turn counter is not advanced, no daemons are executed, and the turn is treated as if it didn’t happen). For example, to make all actions that fail at the verify stage not count as a turn we could include the following in our game code:

     
     modify Action
        failedActionCountsAsTurn = nil
    ;

Pre-conditions

In interactive fiction it’s frequently the case that some condition has to obtain in order for some action to go ahead. Before I can take the red ball I have to be able to reach it. Before I can put the red ball in the blue box I have to be holding the red ball and the blue box has to be open. Moreover in such cases it is very tedious for the player to be told s/he has to meet the condition before the action can be carried out. No player will thank you if you force the following kind of interaction on them:

>put red ball in blue box
You have to be holding the red ball before you can put it in anything.

>take red ball
Done.

>put red ball in blue box
The blue box must be open before you can put anything in it.

>open blue box
Done.

>put red ball in blue box
Done.

It would be much better if the parser just went ahead and carried out the obvious actions of taking the red ball and opening the blue box automatically for the player, instead of annoyingly telling players that they need to carry them out themselves.

It would, however, also be a bit tedious for game authors to have to code round such problems for every individual case. The solution provided by the adv3Lite library (shamelessly copied from the adv3 library) is to use PreConditions, objects that encapsulate these frequently-occurring pre-conditions of carrying out an action and, where appropriate, trigger an implicit action to try to meet the pre-condition on the player’s behalf. The PreCondition objects currently defined in the adv3Lite library are:

The last of these PreConditions is very common. It also has a couple of additional complications, in that it queries the verifyReach(obj) and checkReach(obj) methods of the object that needs to be touched (the obj method in these methods actually refers to the actor whose trying to do the touching). verifyReach(obj) can optionally add further verify conditions (specified just as for a normal verify method). checkReach(obj) can then apply further checks; if checkReach(obj) displays anything (presumably a message saying why the object can’t be touched), then the action will not be allowed to go ahead.

This incidentally highlights the point that a PreCondition has a verify stage (when it can apply further verify results) and a check stage (which is normally the stage at which it would attempt any implicit actions, though touchObj is a bit of an exception here).

To apply PreConditions to objects involved in particular actions we simply list the appropriate precondition objects in the appropriate preCond property, for example:

    class Thing: Mentionable
       ...
       dobjFor(PutIn)
       {
            preCond = [objHeld, objNotWorn]
            ...
       }
       
       iobjFor(PutIn)
       {
           preCond = [containerOpen]
           ...
       }
    ;

A further example illustrates how the touchObj precondition can be used in conjunction with a checkReach() method to prevent an object being touched when it’s too hot:

    + cooker: Thing 'cooker;blackened;oven stove top'
        "Normally, you keep it in pretty good shape (or your cleaner does) but right
        now it's looking suspiciously blackened, especially round the top. "    
        
        isFixed = true
        isSwitchable = true
        isOn = true
        
        smellDesc = "There's a distinct smell of burning from the cooker. "
        
        remapIn: SubComponent
        {
            isOpenable = true
            bulkCapacity = 6
        }
        
        remapOn: SubComponent  {  }
    ;



    ++ saucepan: Thing 'saucepan;;pan'
        "It's absolutely blackened. It was obviously left on the stove too long --
        perhaps that's what started the fire. "
       
        subLocation = &remapOn
        contType = In
        
        temperature = 100
        
        temperatureDaemon()
        {
            if(location == cooker.remapOn && cooker.isOn && temperature < 100)
                temperature++;
            
            if((location != cooker.remapOn || !cooker.isOn) && temperature > 15)
                temperature--;
        }
        
        checkReach(obj)
        {
            if(temperature > 70)
            {
                "The saucepan is <<if temperature > 90>>far <<else if temperature
                < 80>> just<<end>> too hot to touch!<.p>";            
            }        
        }
        
        cannotBurnMsg = 'The saucepan\'s quite burnt enough already! '
    ;

Occasionally it can be useful to list a PreCondition in the preCond property of an Action object, particularly when the Action is an IAction and we want the actor to be in a particular state before the action can take place. For example the library defines the Jump action thus:

     DefineIAction(Jump)
        execAction(cmd)
        {
            DMsg(jump, '{I} jump{s/ed} on the spot, fruitlessly. ');
        }
        
        preCond = (gActor.location && gActor.location.getOutToJump ?
        [actorOutOfNested]: nil)
    ;

This ensures that the actor is removed from any nested room it’s in before attempting to JUMP (unless it starts out in a nested room for which getOutToJump is nil).

Check

The check stage is used to prevent an action which is not obviously illogical to the player. An example might be trying to open a locked door (when it may be far from immediately obvious that the door is locked). Pragmatically, you would use a check routine to block an action when you don’t want blocking the action to affect the parser’s choice of this object as a good or at least reasonable match for the command entered by the player.

Defining a check routine is very straightforward. If the action cannot go ahead, you simply display a message saying why it cannot go ahead. (adv3 users please note: in an adv3Lite check routine you do not need to use the exit macro, or failCheck(), or reportFailure(); indeed you should not use any such things here). A check routine should thus consist purely of statements that display failure messages to the player and conditional statements controlling when they are displayed, e.g.:

    partyDress: Thing 'party dress; blue; frock'
      isWearable = true
      wornBy = gPlayerChar
      
      dobjFor(Doff)
      {
         check()
         {
            if(!gPlayerChar.isIn(bedroom))
               "It would be most unbecoming for a young lady to undress outside her 
                own room. ";
         }
      }

This incidentally illustrates that when customizing objects to respond to actions, there’s no need to repeat the parts already defined by the library. The library’s implementation of dobjFor(Doff) already ensures that the object is currently being worn (in its verify routine) and already carries out the doffing action in its action routine if the action is allowed to go ahead. You only need to override the parts you want to customize.

Finally, note that a check() routine should not normally contain anything but statements that display failure messages and conditional statements that control when they apply. In particular, check() methods should not normally change the game state. The first exceptions is that it’s perfectly legitimate for a check method to set a flag to show that an action has been attempted. This could be used, for example, to trigger a series of hints about how to open a jammed door after the player first attempts to open it. The second is that it’s also perfectly okay for a check routine to attempt an implicit action (via

tryImplicitAction(…)) that might allow the action to go ahead if it succeeds (since tryImplicitAction does not immediately display any text but stores the implicit action report for later, this won’t stop the action).

Very occasionally, you may wish to display some text from with a check routine without having it stop the action. You can do so by calling the noHalt() function at an appropriate point in your code. For example, suppose you want to implement a piece of paper on which the player character can write using a WRITE WHATEVER ON PAPER command (given that WRITE WHATEVER ON PAPER WITH PEN isn’t normal IF syntax). You may wish the check stage on the piece of paper to check whether the player character has a suitable writing implement, perhaps performing an implicit take if there’s otherwise a suitable writing implement to hand, and announcing which writing implement the player character is using without halting the action in the process. This could be implemented thus:

    + pieceOfPaper: Thing 'piece of paper'
        "On it is inscribed <q><<writtenText>></q>. "
        
        canWriteOnMe = true
        
        writtenText = 'Some random thoughts: '
        
        dobjFor(WriteOn) {
            verify() {}
            check() 
            {
                if (gLiteral == nil)
                {
                    "You'll need to say what you want to write. ";
                    return; //We need to return here otherwise the later call to noHalt() might allow the action to proceed.
                }
                
                local writingImplement = nil;
                
                writingImplement = gActor.contents.valWhich({x: x.canWriteWithMe});
                
                if(writingImplement == nil)
                {
                    writingImplement = Q.scopeList(gActor).toList().valWhich({x: x.canWriteWithMe}); //Note we need to use toList() here
                    if(writingImplement)
                    {
                        if(!tryImplicitAction(Take, writingImplement))
                            writingImplement = nil;
                    }
                }
                
                if(writingImplement)
                    "(with <<writingImplement.theName>>)\n<<noHalt()>>"; //Note the use of noHalt() here
                else
                    "You need to be holding a writing implement to do that. ";
                    
            }
            action() 
            {
                "You write <q><<gLiteral>></q> on the piece of paper. ";
                writtenText += (gLiteral + ' ');
            }
        }
    ;

    + blackPen: Thing 'black pen'
        canWriteWithMe = true   
    ;

While we could, in principle, have delayed displaying the “(with the black pen)” message until the action stage, this would have been awkward given that’s it our check routine that’s just identified which writing implement the player character is using. Using noHalt() at this point allows us to display this message without preventing the action from going ahead. Another couple of points to note here in passing are, first, that the canWriteWithMe property we’re using here isn’t one defined in the adv3Lite library, but rather a custom property we’re using here to identify possible writing implements in a game that may have several; and, second, that since what Q.scopeList(actor) returns isn’t a true list, but rather a ScopeList object, we need to convert it to a list (by calling its toList() method) in order to be able to use the valWhich() method to indentify a writing implement that’s in scope. Finally, a point to emphasize: noHalt() has to be called as noHalt() (with the parentheses); trying to call it as noHalt (without the parentheses) won’t work; it’s a function, not a macro.

Action

The action stage is also perfectly straightforward: it’s the stage that actually carries out the action and changes the game state accordingly, (e.g. by moving an object into the player’s inventory or into a container, or opening a box or closing a door). The one complication to bear in mind is whether an action method should display anything to the player or leave it to the report stage.

In general the action routine should display a message of its own in either of the following cases:

  1. The message represents the main point of the action (e.g. reading, examining, or looking under something to see what’s there.)
  2. The action has an unusual, unexpected or idiosyncratic outcome: e.g. pushing the red button causes a secret door to open, turning the dial to the right combination causes the safe to open, or taking the golden skull triggers a trap.

Note that if an action routine displays a message, the object won’t be reported on by the report() routine (since in that case the library assumes that reporting on the action has been fully covered by the message displayed by the action method). If, however, you want to report on a supplementary side effect of carrying out some action (e.g. taking a mat reveals a note that was previously concealed beneath) you could do so by using the reportAfter(msg) macro, which will cause msg to be displayed after any output from the report stage. For example:

    mat:Thing 'mat; white place; placemat'
      dobjFor(Take)
      {
         action()
         {
            if(harryNote.isIn(nil))
            {
               harryNote.moveInto(location);
               reportAfter('Moving the mat reveals a note that was hidden beneath. ' );
            }
            inherited();
         }
      }
    ;

Note that you wouldn’t have to code this particular example this way, since in practice you’d simply define hiddenUnder = [harryNote] on the mat object to produce the same effect, but the example suffices to illustrate the principle.

There’s also a extraReport(msg) macro that can be used by an action method to display a piece of introductory text that won’t suppress the default message at the report stage. This probably isn’t needed much but may occasionally needed to provided some piece of parentheic information. For example it is used by the library to announce which key it has chosen (e.g. (“(with the brass key)”) in response to a LOCK or UNLOCK command:

      dobjFor(Lock)
      {
         ...
         action()
         {
            if(useKey_ != nil)
                extraReport(withKeyMsg);
            else if(lockability == lockableWithKey)
                askForIobj(LockWith);
             
            makeLocked(true);              
         }
            
         report()
         {
            DMsg(report lock, okayLockMsg, gActionListStr);
         }
      }

Here the report() phase would still be suppressed, however, if the action() method displayed anything else (apart from its extraReport() message). For example, if makeLocked() were overridden to display some text, the report() phase would not take place. (Technical note: what extraReport() if fact does is write direct to the output bypassing all filters, so its output isn’t registered by the watchForOutput() method; it could be used elsewhere to bypass the normal output filtering, but this is not recommended; extraReport() does, however, carry out any message parameter substitution required unless its second, optional, paraemeter is given as nil).

There are two special methods you can call from an action routine if you want to perform another action, either instead of or as part of the current action. These methods are called doInstead() and doNested() respectively. Suppose, for example, you wanted putting something under the tap to result in its being put in the sink; you could do it like this:

    tap: Fixture 'tap; silver; faucet'
      ...
      iobjFor(PutUnder)
      {
         verify() { }
         action()
         {
             doInstead(PutIn, gDobj, sink);
         }
      }
    ;

You could do the same with replaceAction(), but doInstead() makes it easier to synthesize certain kinds of action that are much harder to so with replaceAction() or nestedAction(). For example if you want the player to ask George about the broken candlestick the first time s/he looks at it you could write something like:

    candlestick: Thing 'silver candlestick; broken'
       "It's broken. "
       
       dobjFor(Examine)
       {
           action()
           {
              inherited();
              if(Q.canTalkTo(me, george) && !georgeAsked)
              {  
                  georgeAsked = true;
                  doNested(AskAbout, george, self);
              }
           }
       }    
       georgeAsked = nil
    ;

This wouldn’t work with nestedAction() because the AskAbout command expects its indirect object to be a ResolvedTopic, not a Thing (or Topic); the doNested() method takes care of this complication for you by wrapping the indirect object of a TopicTCommand in a ResolvedTopic if it isn’t one already.

Note, however, that it may often be better to call doInstead() on a Doer. See the discussion there for the full implications.

Note also that when called elsewhere than a Doer, doInstead() (or replaceAction()) is rather different in effect from the similar seeming doNested() (or nestedAction()). doNested() (or nestedAction()) executes one action in the course of another and then resumes execution of the first (even if it’s the last statement in an action routine), so that, for example, you get the afterAction() processing of the original action. doInstead() (or replaceAction()) completely replaces the original action with the new one (even if it isn’t the last statement in the action routine), so that, for example, you get the afterAction processing of the new, replacement action instead of that of the original action.

Finally, one other pair of macros that are occasionally useful in an action() routine are askForDobj(action) and askForIobj(action); these prompt the player for either the direct object or indirect object of action and then attempt to execute action with the additional object specified. These would typically be used to convert an IAction into a TAction or a TAction into a TIAction. For example if you had a patch of sand in which the player character could dig with a spade, you could use askForIobj() to make the TAction Dig ask for an indirect object for the TIAction DigWith, and then (if the player responds with the name of a suitable object) execute DigWith with the existing direct object and newly specified indirect object:

    + sand: Fixture 'patch of sand; deep'
       "It's not very big, but it looks like it could be quite deep. "
       
       isDiggable = true
       
       dobjFor(Dig)
       {
          action() { askForIobj(DigWith); }
       }
      
       dobjFor(DigWith)
       {
         ...
    ;

Report

The report phase is one that adv3Lite adds to the phases used by the adv3 library. Its main function is to facilitate the display of a grouping or summarizing report for an action that might be performed on several objects at once, e.g. TAKE ALL or TAKE BALLS or TAKE PEN, INK AND PAPER. Rather than the game responding with a separate report for each object, it simply runs the report routine on the last object to be involved in command, at which point a list of all the affected objects is available; the pseudo-global variable gActionListStr then contains a single-quoted string listing the items in the form ‘the pen, the ink and the paper’ which can be used in your report, e.g.:

    class Thing Mentionable
      dobjFor(Take)
      {
         action()
         {
            actionMoveInto(gActor);
         }
         
         report()
         {
            "You take <<gActionListStr>>. ";
         }
      }
    ;

This will result in a report such as ‘You take the pen, the ink and the paper. ‘ (Note that there’s no need to implement this particular example in your own code, since the library already does so, albeit in a slightly more elaborate form).

It’s worth emphasizing again that the report routine is only run on the last of a series of objects involved in any one command (of course many commands act on only one object, in which case this is the object whose report() method will be executed). You should also note that the report() phase is not run at all if either of the following conditions is true:

  1. The action is an implicit action.
  2. There’s nothing left to report on, either because no objects made it to the action stage, or because the action stage has already reported on the action for every object involved in the command.

There should thus be no danger of a report method generating output like ‘You take .’

There may be occasions when you want the list of objects to be reported on at the report stage to be the subject of a sentence (e.g. “The pen, the notepad and the blotter fly across the room and land on the ground.”) It’s awkward to use gActionListStr for this, since this is simply a string value, and there’s no practicable way to test whether a string value represents a single object or a plurality of objects, which is what you need to know to ensure that the verb agrees with the subject, and that any pronouns used agree in number with the number of items being reported on (E.g. “You fling the pen northwards and it lands on the ground” versus “You fling the pen and the notebook northwards and they land on the ground.”) To deal with this situation you can use the macro gActionListObj, which evaluates to an object that agrees in number (i.e. is singular or plural) with the number of objects being reported on, and whose name property is the same as gActionListStr (the object is also treated as qualified, so you won’t get any additional articles if you use its theName property). The best way to use gActionListObj is probably to assign it to a variable which you can then use in a message parameter substitution, as in the following example from the library (for ThrowDir):

        report()
        {
            local obj = gActionListObj;
            
            gMessageParams(obj);
                
            DMsg(throw dir, '{I} {throw} {the obj} {1}wards and {he obj} {lands}
                on the ground. ', gAction.direction.name );
        }

Finally, since the report method is designed to give a routine report on what may be a group of objects, there’s usually little point in defining it on a particular object as opposed to a class (quite apart from anything else, when a command applies to several objects you can’t be sure which object’s report() method will be used, so you’d want them all to be the same). The only exception might be for an action that can only be applied to a single object. In general, then, you’ll normally only want to define or override a report() method in either of the following two cases:

  1. Defining the handling for a new action you have implemented yourself.
  2. Changing the library’s default behaviour for a class (although even then it might be simpler to create a CustomMessage object to produce the same effect).

Remap

The Remap stage is used to replace the current object of an action with another object in the same role. For example, to remap putting things in a desk to putting them into its drawer we could simply write:

    desk: Thing 'desk'
      "It has a single drawer. "
      iobjFor(PutIn) { remap = drawer  }
    ;

Finally, there are situations when you what you want to do is not so much to remap one action to another (possibly involving different objects) but to have one action behave like another on the same object. For this purpose you can use the macros asDobjFor(action) and asIobjFor(action), just as in the adv3 library. For example if we wanted pulling the drawer always to equate to opening it we’d write:

    drawer: Thing 'drawer'
      isOpenable = true
      contType = In

      dobjFor(Pull) asDobjFor(Open)  
    ;

As a second example, the adv3Lite library defines the following on the SimpleAttachable class to make FASTEN and UNFASTEN behave just like ATTACH and DETACH:

    class SimpleAttachable: Thing
      ...
       /* Treat Fasten and Unfasten as equivalent to Attach and Detach */
        dobjFor(FastenTo) asDobjFor(AttachTo)
        iobjFor(FastenTo) asIobjFor(AttachTo)
        dobjFor(UnfastenFrom) asDobjFor(DetachFrom)
        iobjFor(UnfastenFrom) asIobjFor(DetachFrom)
        dobjFor(Unfasten) asDobjFor(Detach)  
    ;

adv3Lite Library Manual
Table of Contents | Actions > Action Results
Prev: Overview     Next: Messages