Errors in Modified Exit

There are some errors in The Modified Exit Extension that should be noted. Consider this piece of code.

[code]“Test”

Include Modified Exit by Emily Short.

The Testing Room is A Room. The chest is an enterable locked container in the testing room. The key unlocks the chest. The player carries the key.

Test exit with “unlock chest with key / open chest / enter chest / close chest / lock chest with key / exit chest”.

Test take with “unlock chest with key / open chest / enter chest / close chest / lock chest with key / take chest”.

Test me with “test exit / test take”.[/code]

First Error.

The player enters the chest, closes the chest and locks the chest. Upon exiting the chest, the player passes straight through the locked chest, causing two room descriptions to be printed simultaneously with one in darkness and one in light, like so.

[code]>exit chest
You get out of the chest.

Darkness
It is pitch dark, and you can’t see a thing.

Testing Room
You can see a chest (closed) here.[/code]

Second Error.

The player enters the chest, closes the chest and locks the chest again. Upon attempting to take the chest, a programming error is generated, like so.

[code]>take chest
(first getting out of the chest)
You can’t get out of the closed chest.

[** Programming error: tried to “move” chest to yourself, which would make a loop: chest in yourself in chest **]

Taken.[/code]

Fixes.

The first error can be fixed by converting getting off a container to exiting and adding the check light in new location rule to the carry out exiting rulebook.

The second error can be fixed by changing this:

Check an actor taking (this is the clever can't take what you're inside rule): if the holder of the person asked is the noun, abide by the implicit exiting rule; if the holder of the person asked is in the noun, rule fails.

To this:

Check an actor taking (this is the clever can't take what you're inside rule): if the holder of the person asked is the noun, abide by the implicit exiting rule; if the holder of the person asked is the noun, rule fails.

These probably need to be fixed in the modified exit extension if they haven’t already been done so. So, could the relevant IF Gods make the relevant changes? Thanks.

Have you tested these without Modified Exit? The first one looks an awful lot like Inform 7 Bug 806, which doesn’t depend on Modified Exit. And if you want to post your fix to the discussion of it, I imagine it would be much appreciated.

Also, if you want to report a bug in an extension, it’s probably best to contact the author directly; Emily Short is “emshort” on this forum, so you can send her a private message (or her e-mail is available in various places).

Looks like I did misinterpret it to Modified Exit. However, the main point here is passing through a closed or locked container as if it were open. Also, I’d rather check up on the errors before emailing authors, just in case.

That looks like a separate bug, but your source code doesn’t reproduce it – I think you have to add “unlock chest” to the beginning of the “test exit” commands.

(And as I said in the other thread, if you want people to try to reproduce the bug that’s what you should ask for – if you ask “could the relevant IF Gods make the relevant changes?” then no one is going to realize that you want to confirm the bug before you contact the author.)

Maybe I was a little unclear. I meant for “test me” to demonstrate the problem rather the individual tests. I’ve ficed up the original post so “test exit” and “test take” work straight off.