I just put up a Uservoice suggestion asking for more flexibility in defining comparatives and superlatives.
Comparatives and superlatives are very cool, but I7 is bossy about what it calls them. If you define a gradable adjective, it automatically generates the comparative and superlative forms – so if you define “good” as a gradable adjective the corresponding forms will be “gooder” and “goodest,” willy-nilly. So my suggestion is to allow “more foo” and “most foo” for comparatives and superlatives, or to let the author set the comparative and superlative manually.
So go vote it up if you want to! Or don’t, I think the limiting factor in this will be how annoying it would be to make this change so close to the rollout of a new version. But I think comparatives and superlatives are cool, and this could make them cooler. Or more cool.
This was a good idea. There was also another post with a suggestion for allowing custom comparative and superlative terms around the same time (see [I7] Telling I7 how to compare an adjective).
I ran into this limitation today and came across a post by somebody trying to work around it 10 years ago (at Comparative for user defined type?). It looks like it’s still impossible to set up comparatives and superlatives for enumerated kinds of value in 10.1.2 today.
These are represented as integers internally, so it seems like it should be possible to adapt the existing compiler code to allow this use case. Would anyone else find the ability to do that to be useful?
The compiler would have to order the values in the order that they’re defined, I guess? I don’t think there’s a way for that to be surprisingly wrong.
(Unlike objects, the compiler won’t magically infer the existence of a new kind-of-value value or consider its creation to be earlier than the “The colors are…” statement.)
EDIT-ADD: (You can have multiple “The colors are…” statements in the game, but the order is still clear.)