Does 'get' have any kind of privileged powers?

I’m having a bunch of headaches trying to define versions of ‘get’ as movement commands. I know standard rules have a bunch built in, but they were going to the wrong places for my game, so I’m trying to reroute things.

I had phrases like ‘Understand “climb on/over [something]”, “get on/over [something]” as objectclimbing.’

This works for the climb version, but not for the get version. IE Climb on (blah) works, get on (blah) tries to actually pick up (blah).

So I tried to rebuild ‘get’ from scratch -

IE - ‘Understand the command ‘get’ as something new’

Then I rebuilt the parts I wanted from the standard library.

But I continue to get behaviour I can’t work out. My ‘get down’ and ‘get off’ intercepts work, but my ‘get on’ and ‘get up’ intercepts don’t. The game tries to get objects called ‘on’ and ‘up’. I can’t learn anything by rule or action tracing - nothing comes up before the action is denied.

I just wondered if ‘get’ has any kind of privileged behaviour internally that I can’t reach. Or if it doesn’t, how can I completely zap all grammar related to ‘get’ that may be sneaking around? ‘Something new’ doesn’t seem to be cutting it.

I considered that the weirdness may come from an extension (I’m using plenty by now), but I can’t think of any obvious culprit, and that will be a headache I’ll only negotiate once I’ve tried asking this question here.

Update -

My variations on ‘get’ were listed all through the source. I found that when I gathered them all in one place and put them after the understanding ‘get’ as something new bit, it started to understand all the ones that had been giving trouble. I’m not entirely sure why, but it’s not impossible I accidentally fixed some hard to spot collisions or something.

The “understand as something new” line erases all grammar definitions listed before that line, even the ones you’ve made yourself. If you had your “get” grammar definitions all over the source, you might have had some them before the “understand as something new” line which would explain why they didn’t take effect.

One way to diagnose grammar definition problems is to go to the Actions tab in the index and look up all commands starting with “get”. If the command is defined in your own code or in an extension, you see an orange arrow icon next to the command that takes you to the extension or the location in code where that grammar line is defined. (This might not have helped in this case because removed grammar doesn’t show in the list, but if the problem is a collision with an extension this is one way to find out.)

Right, thanks for the info.

It’s a tricky syntax. I filed a bug report a few weeks back: