[TADS] defined(phone.t or equivalent?)

2 views
Skip to first unread message

kar...@fermi2.chem.yale.edu

unread,
Oct 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/24/99
to
Wow. Sense.t, doors.t, chatter.t. Neato!

I'm sure there have been a bunch of games with phones in them. (Christminster
had several, e.g.) But looking through examples/, I didn't seem to find
anything that would handle creating phones. Before I waste the time to create
a library, though, I figured I should ask about it.

Things I thought about:

- the library could work for phones (phones you can't move from the room,
cordless phones you can't take out of a given area, or cell phones),
(transmitting, receiving, or two way) intercoms, walkie-talkies...

- you could in theory allow transmitting/receiving, two-way conversation, or
conference calls

- I envision your being allowed to use:
* dial joe (actors have phone numbers)
* dial joe's house (objects have phone numbers)
* dial 0 (you can dial phone numbers directly)
* dial "333-2345" (otherwise the parser thinks you dialed "333"-- but
maybe we could do a fancy preparse like chatter does for
"thanks, joe".

- it would be very interesting to see if we could interface with the new and
exciting chatter.t. That is, have some new phone_allowed property for
verbs, which lets that verb be done over the phone. Basically, it would be
true for all the verbs in chatter.t. This is necessary because validDo
("tell joe about his mama") and validActor ("joe, thanks") don't work.
Plus, we would do it in both directions. Otherwise, "joe, tell
me about your mother" doesn't work, because joe can't reach you.

What do people think (other than the fact that it's vaporware and therefore
useless)? Has much of this been done already? If so, I would welcome some
code I could use to start the project, as long as I'm allowed to change it at
will.

-Amir Karger
kar...@post.harvard.edu

Suzanne Skinner

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
>- it would be very interesting to see if we could interface with the new and
> exciting chatter.t. That is, have some new phone_allowed property for
> verbs, which lets that verb be done over the phone.

This is a nifty idea. I'll see if I can come up with a good way of
implementing phones.

> Basically, it would be true for all the verbs in chatter.t.

Well, except for SHOW and GIVE.

Suzanne

--
tr...@igs.net http://www.igs.net/~tril/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
McCoy: "Well, this looks like a safe enough place."
(A huge hole opens up in the ground and swallows one of the men in
red shirts.)
- Peter Anspach, "Who Shall Bring Us Light?"

kar...@yale.edu

unread,
Oct 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/25/99
to
Suzanne Skinner <tr...@host.ott.igs.net> wrote:
:>- it would be very interesting to see if we could interface with the new and

:> exciting chatter.t. That is, have some new phone_allowed property for
:> verbs, which lets that verb be done over the phone.

: This is a nifty idea. I'll see if I can come up with a good way of
: implementing phones.

Well, if it's designed right, I think you wouldn't have to change chatter.t
at all.

:> Basically, it would be true for all the verbs in chatter.t.

: Well, except for SHOW and GIVE.

Good point.

-Amir

Kevin Forchione

unread,
Oct 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/26/99
to
Suzanne Skinner <tr...@host.ott.igs.net> wrote in message
news:7v1t2o$59i$1...@news.igs.net...

> This is a nifty idea. I'll see if I can come up with a good way of
> implementing phones.

Yes, I thought so too. I can't wait to see what you come up with. I've got a
feeling that you and I are going to intersect somewhere in our projects --
actor behaviour is one of those "final frontiers" with so much to explore.

"Phones" has a lot of leeway in its scope. I think what we're talking about
is two-fold:

* The ability of one actor to communicate with another actor when they
aren't "take-able" in the conventional sense.
* Handling the operations of a telephone class object.

It is the first part that interests me, as it fits in well with the system
established in sense.t. Any ideas you might like to share in this respect
would be appreciated, and I will certainly pitch any brainstorms your way.

With TADS there are so many ways to solve a programming task, but I'm always
after the most *elegant* approach. For instance, I handled this remote
communication problem in inform.t (for the museum.t game) by the
implementation of the observer class object -- an object that is in concept
similar to the follower class, except that it is a stand-in for the
parserGetMe() object. I don't like this idea very much, however, as it
requires an observer for each actor you want to communicate with remotely.

Right now, however, my attention has turned back to the development of
ALT.T, and the incorporation of sense.t scoping into the library (actually,
that was the purpose of creating sense.t, to prototype the possibility for
alt.t)

--Kevin

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages