Re: Issues from the digests and Wout's list

[cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA (Chris Gray)]

[Shawn H:]

:So far, I haven't thought up a case where any of the verbs on indirect
:objects will matter in my model:  saying 'fill flask with water' only
:means that an item with water in it must be present in the immediate
:vicinity, but how the water in that item gets into the flask doesn't use
:the verbs on the item.  I approach it from the character's PoV, where
:the character's verbs are checked first, then the direct object's verbs
:are checked, then room.  As of yet, I've been unable to come up with a
:sensible case where there would be real confusion with respect to verb
:scope.  I'm pretty sure, though, that more than two heads can come up
:with a case that wrecks all of this :)

Just took a quick scan through my main verbs. Ok, so I'm not totally
consistent! :-) Here's one for you:   take <object> from <container>
It seems to me that the order of the checks should roughly be the
order that they would be physically encountered in real life:

    playerA			[got hands, not paralyzed, etc.]
    direct object		[not glued down or something]
    indirect object (container) [opening big enough, etc.]
    room			[no stasis field, etc.]
    playerB			[able to hold the object]

For  put <object> into <container>   they would be:

    playerA
    playerB ?
    direct object		[could be "cursed"]
    room
    container

--
Chris Gray   cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA