[MUD-Dev] Re[2]: [MUD-Dev] Text Parsing

[Travis Casey]

On Wednesday, June 02, 1999, Greg Miller wrote:
> "Travis S. Casey" wrote:

>> I think that trying to make a full natural language parser is a bit much,
>> but I'd personally prefer to be able to type:
>>
>>   get red sword and blue sword
>>   n
>>
>> or, if the red and blue swords are the only swords in the room:
>>
>>   get all swords
>>   n
>>

> I prefer "get red and blue swords" and "get swords" for these cases.
> They're plain english, less typing that anything suggested so far, and
> they're likely among the first things new players will try.

I'd also prefer the "get red and blue swords" -- I used the example I
did because I haven't seen a mud that supports that syntax.  I can
see a way to do it, but I've been trying to use examples that my own
parser would accept.

I'm not sure that I like "get swords" -- it's very ambiguous.  What if
there are five swords in the room?  Does the user want 2, 3, 4, or 5
of them?

I put in support for "get swords" meaning "get all swords" at one
point, but never made a firm decision on whether to keep it or not.  I
probably would have wound up making it a switchable thing, so users
could choose whether or not to use it, and turn it on by default.

I suppose I could have "get swords" work if there are only two swords,
and ask "How many?" if there are more than two, but I prefer to avoid
such prompts.

>> Personally, I'm interested in parsing not to make the command language be
>> English, but to make it easier and more flexible to use.  That's one
>> reason that I decided to make my own parser under MudOS instead of using
>> the MudOS one -- the Lima people had too much of an emphasis on requiring
>> commands to be grammatically correct for my taste.

> Have you looked at the DiscWorld mudlib? I've found it saves me quite a
> bit of typing, simply by interpreting short english sentences to mean
> what they do in english rather than requiring odd constructs like "all
> swords" or "all.sword"

I wouldn't consider "all swords" an odd construct, myself... it's
perfectly standard English, and is not as ambiguous as "get swords".
I agree on "all.sword", though.

>> (On most LP muds, "get sword 2" is how you'd get the second sword listed
>> in the room.  On Lima, it was "get second sword".  I recall someone asking
>> if understanding of the "get sword 2" syntax could be added, and Beek
>> replying that he could, but he wouldn't, since "get sword 2" was not
>> English.  That's the kind of thing that I think is excessive.)

> Maybe they were roleplayers gone overboard? I've seen the occasional
> complaint that traditional mud commands interfere with roleplaying (then
> again, I've also seen arguments over whether the mud should simulate
> incorrect spelling for npcs to match players, or simple run spell- and
> grammar-checking on player speech in order to improve "role-playing". Go
> figure.)

Yep... I think there are reasonable limits to everything.  Making
interfaces "more correct" at a cost to usability seems dumb to me.

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_        Travis S. Casey  <efindel at io.com>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev