Quick fix for 6L02 library messages

As for the question of when [that], [those], [these] print in nominative/accusative case, I believe explict [we-those] and [us-those] would be needed. The single-word [those] and [these] could be synonyms for one of the cases, like

To say these/we-these:

To say those/us-those:

…since I think the SR tends to use “these” in the subject (implying they are close, like, in your inventory) and “those” in the object (implying they’re in the room somewhere). But I think explicitness should still be an option.

Ron, how would you feel about these phrases:

To say [item - a thing] reflexive of [previous mention - a thing]:

To say these/we-these reflexive of [previous mention - a thing]:

To say those/us-those reflexive of [previous mention - a thing]:

To say [item - a thing] reflexive:
    say item reflexive of the prior named object.

To say ourselves-those:
    say us-those reflexive.

To say the direct object:
    say the noun reflexive.

To say the indirect object:
    say the second noun reflexive.

Although, now that I think about it, it might make more sense for reflexive to refer to the pronoun settings or the “mentioned” property rather than to the prior named object. If that were the case, it might even be possible to make my “treat” example work correctly.

I was just digging through the standard extensions to see if “mentioned” could be used. Printing the name of an object does give it the mentioned property, but unfortunately “[we]”, etc. does not make the player mentioned.

To say [item - a thing] reflexive:

Probably “…reflexively” and “…reflexively if…” because the adverb reads better, but again, it’s the implementation of reflexives that I doubt. But I guess I don’t care about the implementation of reflexives as long as they’re walled off into their own separate say-phrases.