[MUD-Dev] Examine/Look

[Ammon Lauritzen]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Elia Morling wrote:

> Is there a standard for the order of examine/look? For example
> with syntax: look ring ;look 2.ring ;look 3.ring etc.

> In some muds the order is: equipment, inventory, room Others I've
> seen go: room, inventory, equipment

Most codebases I've worked with don't distinguish between equipment
and general inventory, they just go through the list of items
sequentially. As far as inventory or environment first, I have seen
many more implementations that do inventory first. That is how my
mudlib does it.  And off the top of my head, I can't really think of
anyone who does it the other way around.

> Some muds also make a distinction between examine and look. Is
> there a standard in their meaning?

Well, the biggest difference is that one aliases examine to exa and
look to l ;) But seriously, examine is often simply implemented as
an alias for 'look at', so you won't be alienating any players if
you make both commands behave exactly the same. This is the way I
use them, look for a room description and exa for a specific
description of an object in the room or my inventory.

If you wanted, you could put a second detailed description on all
objects that is displayed when using examine as opposed to look,
possibly with the restriction that you must be holding an object in
order to examine it thoroughly. I have seen very few implementations
like this because of the extra work it involves. Thus, we have:

  % i
  You are carrying: a sword and a tulip.
  % l sword
  A long black sword. It emits a dull red glow.
  % exa sword

This is the Sword of DOOM, or at least, that's what the label
hanging from the pommel would lead one to believe. It is long for a
one-handed weapon, possibly reaching 6 feet in length and weighing
in at over 10 pounds.  Intricate engravings along the black iron
blade depict various humans and beasts in differing states of
injury, death, and decay. Dim red-grey light forms something of a
shell around the blade and adds just the right touch of morbid
ominosity to the item that it might otherwise be lacking.

> I have similar questions as I'm working on a new codebase. Is there
> a document standardizing commands, perhaps a joint effort by
> multiple codebases or simply a research project looking for common
> denominators in muds?

I have never encountered such a document, though does quite possibly
exist.

Generally, new muds either build on previous code, in the which
case, they inherit a good deal of their basic functionality from
other people's work, or they are built from scratch by people who
have experience with a particular feature set, in the which case,
the programmers tend to implement what they are familiar with.

--
Ammon Lauritzen
http://www.simud.org/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev