X-Git-Url: https://jxself.org/git/?p=mudsync.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=mudsync%2Fgameobj.scm;h=6f2ddf071747d72118fb4c1b2057705955356dfe;hp=c5f1648e12209ecf6340da428fb35b3508bd562a;hb=a665b6e113d400b364f5b22ab151e7d84d5a0a38;hpb=baf2f16f3e37b4a6b69603c4c21530d4093bb193 diff --git a/mudsync/gameobj.scm b/mudsync/gameobj.scm index c5f1648..6f2ddf0 100644 --- a/mudsync/gameobj.scm +++ b/mudsync/gameobj.scm @@ -42,7 +42,11 @@ slot-ref-maybe-runcheck val-or-run - dyn-ref)) + dyn-ref + + ;; Some of the more common commands + cmd-take cmd-drop + cmd-take-from cmd-put-in)) ;;; Gameobj ;;; ======= @@ -93,10 +97,10 @@ ("drop" ((direct-command cmd-drop #:obvious? #f))))) ;; Most objects are generally visible by default - (generally-visible #:init-value #t - #:init-keyword #:generally-visible) - ;; @@: Would be preferable to be using generic methods for this... - ;; Hopefully we can port this to Guile 2.2 soon... + (invisible? #:init-value #f + #:init-keyword #:invisible?) + ;; TODO: Fold this into a procedure in invisible? similar + ;; to take-me? and etc (visible-to-player? #:init-value (wrap-apply gameobj-visible-to-player?)) @@ -322,7 +326,7 @@ and whos-asking, and see if we should just return it or run it." (define (gameobj-visible-to-player? gameobj whos-looking) "Check to see whether we're visible to the player or not. By default, this is whether or not the generally-visible flag is set." - (slot-ref gameobj 'generally-visible)) + (not (slot-ref gameobj 'invisible?))) (define* (gameobj-visible-name actor message #:key whos-looking) ;; Are we visible? @@ -403,8 +407,9 @@ By default, this is whether or not the generally-visible flag is set." ;;; Basic actions ;;; ------------- -(define* (cmd-take gameobj message #:key direct-obj) - (define player (message-from message)) +(define* (cmd-take gameobj message + #:key direct-obj + (player (message-from message))) (define player-name (mbody-val (<-wait player 'get-name))) (define player-loc @@ -431,8 +436,9 @@ By default, this is whether or not the generally-visible flag is set." #:text (format #f "It doesn't seem like you can take ~a.\n" our-name)))) -(define* (cmd-drop gameobj message #:key direct-obj) - (define player (message-from message)) +(define* (cmd-drop gameobj message + #:key direct-obj + (player (message-from message))) (define player-name (mbody-val (<-wait player 'get-name))) (define player-loc @@ -474,16 +480,18 @@ By default, this is whether or not the generally-visible flag is set." our-name) #:exclude player)))) +;; @@: Moving this to a container subclass/mixin could allow a lot more +;; customization of take out / put in phrases (define* (cmd-take-from gameobj message - #:key direct-obj indir-obj preposition) - (define player (message-from message)) + #:key direct-obj indir-obj preposition + (player (message-from message))) (define player-name (mbody-val (<-wait player 'get-name))) (define player-loc (mbody-val (<-wait player 'get-loc))) (define our-name (slot-ref gameobj 'name)) ;; We need to check if we even have such a thing - (define thing-to-take + (define this-thing (call/ec (lambda (return) (for-each (lambda (occupant) @@ -494,50 +502,64 @@ By default, this is whether or not the generally-visible flag is set." (gameobj-occupants gameobj)) ;; nothing found #f))) + (define (this-thing-name) + (mbody-val (<-wait this-thing 'get-name))) (define (should-take-from-me) - (and thing-to-take - (slot-ref-maybe-runcheck gameobj 'take-from-me? player thing-to-take))) - ;; @@: Right now we give the same response to both something not being - ;; an occupant and to not being permitted to be removed. This isn't - ;; very rich and maybe not as helpful as it could be. Right now I'm - ;; trying to avoid "leaking" information about if an object isn't there. - ;; However maybe by making the different responses as slots which can be - ;; set, this wouldn't be a problem. - (define default-objection - "As much as you'd like to take it, it doesn't seem like you can.") - (define (thing-to-take-objection) + (and this-thing + (slot-ref-maybe-runcheck gameobj 'take-from-me? player this-thing))) + (define (default-objection) + `("Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like you can take " + (this-thing-name) " " preposition " " our-name ".")) + + (define (this-thing-objection) (mbody-receive (_ taken-ok? #:key why-not) ; does the object object to being removed? - (<-wait thing-to-take 'ok-to-be-taken-from? player) ; @@ no need to supply from where + (<-wait this-thing 'ok-to-be-taken-from? player) ; @@ no need to supply from where (and (not taken-ok?) ;; Either give the specified reason, or give a boilerplate one - (or why-not default-objection)))) + (or why-not + (default-objection))))) (cond - ;; Is it not there, or maybe we won't allow it to be taken? - ((or (not thing-to-take) (not (should-take-from-me))) - (<- (message-from message) 'tell - #:text default-objection)) + ;; Wait, aren't we going to check (should-take-from-me) later? + ;; Well yes, but this checks if there's a #f as the value, which + ;; is a much clearer indication that this doesn't take *anything*. + ((not (slot-ref gameobj 'take-from-me?)) + (<- player 'tell + #:text `("It's not really clear how to take something " ,preposition + " " ,our-name "."))) + + ;; Unfortunately this does leak information about what is contained + ;; by us. Maybe not what's wanted in all circumstances. + ((not this-thing) + (<- player 'tell + #:text `("You don't see any such " ,direct-obj " to take from " + ,our-name "."))) + ;; A particular objection to taking this thing. + ;; We should allow customizing the reason here, which could be + ;; provided by the 'ok-to-be-taken-from? slot. + ((not (should-take-from-me)) + (<- player 'tell + #:text (default-objection))) ;; the thing we wsant to take itself has objected... - ((thing-to-take-objection) => + ((this-thing-objection) => (lambda (objection) - (<- (message-from message) 'tell + (<- player 'tell #:text objection))) ;; looks like we can take it (else - (let ((thing-to-take-name - (mbody-val (<-wait thing-to-take 'get-name)))) - ;; Wait to announce to the player just in case settting the location - ;; errors out or something. Maybe it's overthinking things, I dunno. - (<-wait thing-to-take 'set-loc! #:loc player) - (<- player 'tell - #:text `("You take " ,thing-to-take-name " from " - ,our-name ".")) - (<- player-loc 'tell-room - #:text `(,player-name " takes " ,thing-to-take-name " from " - ,our-name ".")))))) + ;; Wait to announce to the player just in case settting the location + ;; errors out or something. Maybe it's overthinking things, I dunno. + (<-wait this-thing 'set-loc! #:loc player) + (<- player 'tell + #:text `("You take " ,(this-thing-name) " from " + ,our-name ".")) + (<- player-loc 'tell-room + #:text `(,player-name " takes " ,(this-thing-name) " from " + ,our-name ".") + #:exclude player)))) (define* (cmd-put-in gameobj message - #:key direct-obj indir-obj preposition) - (define player (message-from message)) + #:key direct-obj indir-obj preposition + (player (message-from message))) (define player-name (mbody-val (<-wait player 'get-name))) (define player-loc @@ -555,45 +577,44 @@ By default, this is whether or not the generally-visible flag is set." (mbody-val (<-wait player 'get-occupants))) ;; nothing found #f))) + (define (this-thing-name) + (mbody-val (<-wait this-thing 'get-name))) (define (should-put-in-me) (and this-thing (slot-ref-maybe-runcheck gameobj 'put-in-me? player this-thing))) - ;; @@: Right now we give the same response to both something not being - ;; an occupant and to not being permitted to be removed. This isn't - ;; very rich and maybe not as helpful as it could be. Right now I'm - ;; trying to avoid "leaking" information about if an object isn't there. - ;; However maybe by making the different responses as slots which can be - ;; set, this wouldn't be a problem. - (define default-objection - "As much as you'd like to, it doesn't seem like you can put that in there.") + (define (default-objection) + `("As much as you'd like to, it doesn't seem like you can put " + ,(this-thing-name) " " ,preposition " " ,our-name ".")) (define (this-thing-objection) (mbody-receive (_ put-in-ok? #:key why-not) ; does the object object to being moved? (<-wait this-thing 'ok-to-be-put-in? player (actor-id gameobj)) (and (not put-in-ok?) ;; Either give the specified reason, or give a boilerplate one - (or why-not default-objection)))) + (or why-not (default-objection))))) (cond ;; Is it not there, or maybe we won't allow it to be taken? - ((or (not this-thing) (not (should-put-in-me))) - (<- (message-from message) 'tell - #:text default-objection)) + ((not this-thing) + (<- player 'tell + #:text `("You don't seem to have any such " ,direct-obj " to put " + ,preposition " " ,our-name "."))) + + ((or (not (should-put-in-me))) + (<- player 'tell + #:text (default-objection))) ;; the thing we wsant to take itself has objected... ((this-thing-objection) => (lambda (objection) - (<- (message-from message) 'tell + (<- player 'tell #:text objection))) ;; looks like we can take it (else - (let ((this-thing-name - (mbody-val (<-wait this-thing 'get-name)))) - - - ;; Wait to announce to the player just in case settting the location - ;; errors out or something. Maybe it's overthinking things, I dunno. - (<-wait this-thing 'set-loc! #:loc (actor-id gameobj)) - (<- player 'tell - #:text `("You put " ,this-thing-name " in " - ,our-name ".")) - (<- player-loc 'tell-room - #:text `(,player-name " puts " ,this-thing-name " in " - ,our-name ".")))))) + ;; Wait to announce to the player just in case settting the location + ;; errors out or something. Maybe it's overthinking things, I dunno. + (<-wait this-thing 'set-loc! #:loc (actor-id gameobj)) + (<- player 'tell + #:text `("You put " ,(this-thing-name) " " ,preposition " " + ,our-name ".")) + (<- player-loc 'tell-room + #:text `(,player-name " puts " ,(this-thing-name) " " ,preposition " " + ,our-name ".") + #:exclude player))))