I’m trying to make a really simple window object, where “look at window” and similar gives a fixed description of what is inside. (primitive, I know)
[code]mywin is a kind of thing. mywin is usually scenery.
Instead of entering mywin, say “You can’t enter - it has been locked.”
Instead of opening mywin, say “It is locked.”.
Understand “look inside/in/into/through [mywin]” as looking at [mywin].[/code]
However, the last line of code don’t work … there is something wrong with looking at [mywin].
I’m no expert but I happen to be awake right now and I’d have written that last line without the final ‘[mywin]’ and replaced the initial ‘[mywin]’ with ‘[something]’ like so…
Understand "look inside/in/into/through [something]" as looking at.
That way whenever you look inside anything it’s the same as looking at. I don’t think you can substitute individual objects for ‘something’ in an ‘Understand’ statement, or at least, I never used it that way in my own code.
Thanks! Aw dammit, it still give the same error. Maybe it is because looking is such a basic command?
By the way, I have tried Understand “look inside/in/into/through [mywin]” as taking. so it looks like I’m able to use individual objects in an ‘understand’ statement.
There is no “looking at” action. When you command >LOOK AT at the prompt, it translates into the “examine” action.
Understand "look inside/in/into/through [something]" as examining.
(You could use [mywin] instead of [something] but then looking inside/in/etc any other object would give “That noun didn’t make sense in this context” which may not be what you want.)