When I turn on rules tracing, I used to get a helpful listing of which rules were firing for any given action. This was very helpful. Now when I turn on rules tracing (using the “rules” command) I get something like this:[Rule "(rule at address 174641)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 177026)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 179582)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 181004)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 181714)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 182231)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 183851)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 184380)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 185090)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 187225)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 188674)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 191049)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 191760)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 192237)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 192987)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 193472)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 194407)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 194884)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 197728)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 198206)" applies.]
[Rule "(rule at address 203011)" applies.]What happened to my handy-dandy list of rule names? Is there a chart somewhere that decodes this list of addresses into actual rules so that I can decipher them?
1 Like
Did you add “Use memory economy” to your code? IIRC, one of the ways that option saves on memory is by stripping out the names of rules (which have a tendency to be verbose). If you are using memory economy, why? Is there some reason you don’t want to move up to Glulx?
As far as some way of determining which rules go with what addresses, I don’t know of one.
1 Like
Yes, that was it. I knew it was something simple. Thank you 