TADS 3 Library - Containment and Senses

### TADS 3 Library: Containment and Senses

Revisions:

- 4/14/2000 - doorways and enterables; Openable and Lockable mix-ins; travel.
- 4/12/2000 - doors; open/closed state for connectors; transparency levels; detectability; sound and smell.
- 4/11/2000 - first version.

### Introduction

This is a preliminary proposal for the design of the containment and sense model in the TADS 3 library. This model shares some of the attributes of the TADS 2 adv.t model, but adds to the adv.t model by differentiating the different senses. Some of the important features of this design:

- Like the adv.t model, the relationship between a container and its contents is a feature of the container. This means that a particular container cannot simultaneously have objects inside and on top, for example. However, like the adv.t model, multiple types of containment for a single object can be simulated using sub-objects; unlike adv.t, we will try to provide some classes that make it easy to code such cases.
- This model provides for multiple senses. The adv.t model effectively provided two senses: sight and touch. We extend this to add sound, smell, and taste, and further provide an extensibility framework that makes it easy to add new senses.
- This model differentiates between scope and validity. An object is "in scope" for an actor if the object is detectable to any of the actor's senses in such a way that the actor can identify the object. An object is "valid" for a command if it meets a set of criteria defined for the command; most commands define these criteria in terms of one or more senses.
- This model introduces a "materials" class. While this would seem to add a frightening new degree of complexity, materials never actually need to be specified, and the behavior of the model when materials are not specified degenerates cleanly to the adv.t model.

I would like to emphasize that this model is a "straw man," and everything about it is preliminary and open to debate, radical changes, or wholesale replacement. The names I've chosen are especially open to change, since I simply wanted to get something down on (electronic) paper as a concrete basis for further discussion.

### Materials

A material defines certain properties of an object separately from the object. The adv.t model had no equivalent of a material.

It cannot be stressed strongly enough that the purpose of materials is not to add a whole new level of detail to adventure games. I believe we should vigilantly suppress any urges we might feel to use materials to generate descriptions, react to "burning" or "breaking" or "hitting with axe," or anything else that might lead to a plethora of library-provided materials, mandatory use of materials for all objects, calls for multi-material objects represented using lists of materials that correspond to the canonically numbered faces of Platonic solids, or any other manifestations of a drift towards a 3D rendered world model. I did not come up with materials in a moment of simulationist excess.

Rather, the purpose of materials is to serve as a mechanism to mediate senses and sense passing, and in particular to centralize all sense-passing definitions with a small set of regular classes.

Here's the problem that I think materials solve. Suppose we didn't have materials, but instead defined different kinds of containers. We'd have a transparent container, a cage-like container, a container made of fine-meshed screen, a container made of paper. We'd want all of these kinds of containers because we'd want to make containers that passed different senses differently. In each kind of container, we'd code the appropriate transparency for each sense. Now, suppose that a game author decided that they need to add a telepathy sense that can detect objects through certain types of containers. The author would have to go through all of the library container classes and modify each one with the new sense-specific transparency code. This problem becomes worse when you consider connections, which have their own way of handling sense transparency.

Materials improve on this situation by centralizing the sense transparency code in a set of objects whose only function is to define this code. Adding a new sense still requires modifying each material object type, but this is much easier than modifying the container types because of the regularity of material objects. It is important that we keep the number of library-defined materials small, to reduce this workload for authors adding new senses.

The library-defined materials are:

Adventium: This is the basic stuff of the universe. All objects in the adv.t model were made of this material, because there was no way to specify any alternative material. Adventium is opaque to all senses.

Paper: This material is opaque to sight (or perhaps transluscent), touch, and taste, but allows sound and smell to pass through.

Glass: This material is transparent to light, but opaque to all other senses.

FineMesh: This material is transparent to all senses except touch. This can be used for window screens, for example, or for chain link fences, or for cages with bars so close that an actor can't reach through them.

CoarseMesh: This material is transparent to all senses, including touch, but objects beyond a certain bulk cannot be moved through it. This can be used for cages with bars spaced widely enough apart that an actor can reach through, but still too close to move large objects through.

### Senses

Senses are represented as objects of class Sense (which itself is a simple 'object' class with no superclass).

The purpose of representing senses as objects is to allow for easy extensibility, so that game authors can add new custom senses to their games without having to make extensive changes to the library.

Senses interact with materials. A sense object has a property, 'transparentProp', that gives the property reference of the "transparency test" property. This property is in turn a property of each material object, and gives the degree of transparency of the material with respect to the sense.

To add a new sense, a game author must merely do the following:

- Create a new instance of Sense for the new sense.
- Make up the name of a transparency test property for the sense.
- Set the transparencyProp property of the new sense object to a reference to the test property.
- Modify the Material base class to add a default setting for the transparency property, giving the default transparency. of all materials to the new sense.
- Modify each Material instance defined in the library and in the game to set a non-default value of the transparency property, as needed.

Note that all of the steps except the final step are extremely simple. The final step - which requires checking and possibly modifying all Material instances - is the one that will require a little thought, and the size of this step depends on how many materials are defined. However, the entire point of the Material system is to centralize this work in a small number of Material objects, and to make the work completely regular, in that the task is identical for each Material. The library should define only a small number of materials, and most games should not need to add more than one or two, so this part of the job should never become very complicated.

Note also that the final step should never become a compatibility problem as game authors move from one library version to the next. When a game author adds a new sense, they'll also have to check and possibly modify all of the materials. When they upgrade to a new library version, it is possible that new materials will have been added. However, a simple recompile won't be a problem - as long as the game author isn't using any of the new materials, it won't matter whether or not the game author gets around to modifying the new materials with the new sense information. The only requirement for library authors is that we never change the default material of an existing class in a library version change - this will ensure that a game will never unexpectedly start using new materials by virtue only of a library upgrade and recompile.

### Transparency Levels

A material passes a sense with a specific transparency level. A material's transparency property for each sense returns one of these levels.

For simplicity, we do not use a continuum of transparency levels. Instead, we enumerate a small set of levels:

- Transparent - the material passes the sense without any interference.
- Distant - the material passes the sense, but objects viewed through the material are at a distance and hence can't be seen in the same level of detail that they could if they were closer.
- Obscured - the material passes the sense, but has an obscuring effect on the information passed through the material. This might be used for something like looking through a dirty window, or listening through an apartment wall.
- Opaque - the material doesn't pass the sense at all.

For most purposes, there will be no practical difference between distant and obscured. However, we distinguish these in the model to allow game authors to make a distinction in specific descriptions, since there might be times when information that can be understood when sensed from a distance is too garbled when sensed through an obscuring material, or vice versa.

We define the "addition" operator on these transparency levels as follows.

- Transparent + X = X
- Opaque + X = Opaque
- Distant + X = Opaque
- Obscured + X = Opaque

Note that addition is commutative (X + Y = Y + X), and the rules above are listed in order of precedence. Hence, Transparent + Obscured = Obscured, since the first rule overrides the last. Note also that, because we do not have gradations of distance or obscuredness, compounding the effects of distance or obscuredness lead simply to opaqueness; hence if we are standing outside of a dirty window looking into a room, and on the other side of the room is another dirty window, we can see what's in the room (obscured), but we can't see what's beyond the other window.

The transparency levels are used to determine what we can sense from a given vantage, and to adjust object descriptions accordingly.

Clearly, it would be asking too much to insist that a game author must provide a separate description for every object at every transparency level. This is, in fact, the reason that this model limits itself to four discrete levels rather than, say, a 1 to 10 scale, or an even broader continuum. A continuum would give the game author more freedom to fine-tune descriptions for different levels of transparency, but it also provides an author with no guidance; in effect this would leave it up to the author to devise a model. It seems that we more than compensate for any loss of freedom in this model by clearly defining what each transparency level means.

Even with only four levels of transparency, though, authors would still be overwhelmed if asked to provide a near, distant, and obscure description for every object. This is the other reason we limit ourselves to a small set of levels in this model: with this small set of levels, we can reasonably provide default behavior in the library that relieves the author of specifying individual messages for each viewing level for most objects.

The library will provide default messages by asking the author merely to specify a "size class" for each object. Again, we limit ourselves to a small number of size classes, because we cannot make use of greater granularity in the library. The library size classes are Large, Medium, and Small. Note that these apply to visual size; it will also be necessary to have similar size classes for sound, such as Loud, Medium, Quiet, and odor, such as Strong, Medium, Weak. Taste and touch should not need size classes because these senses do not operate at a distance.

The benefit of the size classes is that most objects will not need to use them. The default size class - Medium - should give reasonable behavior for nearly all objects, and if an author simply doesn't want to code a game at this level of detail at all, the default Medium class should never produce jarring results. In addition, it should always be easy for an author to decide what size class to use, since the rules are simple.

For each sense, every object will define a method that takes a transparency level and produces a description of the object. The purpose of this method is to produce the description that a player receives in response to examining the object using that sense. In most cases, game authors will not code this method; it will be inherited from Thing, and will check the size class for the sense and the transparency level to select an appropriate description provided by the game author. The author will in most cases only provide a short and long description (sdesc and ldesc), just as in the adv.t model.

A Large object (or the equivalent for sound and smell) can be sensed in detail from a distance and through obscuring materials. This class is appropriate for a building, a large animal, or other objects that are so large that their details can be seen from a distance. The default handling for this object is to display its ldesc, regardless of the transparency level.

A Medium object can be sensed in detail only at the "transparent" level. At the distant or opaque levels, the object produces a default description such as "you cannot see (or hear, etc) any detail from here."

A Small object can be sensed in detail only at the "transparent" level, and its presence cannot even be sensed from any other level. Thus, the Small size class must actually be taken into account in scoping, since a Small object is not even in scope when a non-transparent boundary must be crossed to reach it. Note that Small objects are meant to be used as sub-parts of Medium objects; because a Medium object's detailed description cannot be seen through a non-transparent boundary, its parts cannot be described through the boundary (it is the detailed description of an object that normally mentions the object's sub-parts), and hence should not be in scope.

Size classes should be implemented as mix-in classes that are listed in the inheritance order before Thing or any subclass of Thing. Thing defines defaults appropriate for a Medium object in each sense. For each sense for which the object isn't a "medium," the game author can simply add the appropriate mix-in object.

Note that the author can still take control of the description mechanism when necessary. The author must simply override the appropriate describe-at-level method to produce a different description. For example, suppose the game has a dirty window with a book on the other side. By default, viewing the book through the window would report "you can't see any detail from here." If the author wanted instead to say something like "you can't make out the title, but it looks like there's a pentagram on the cover," this could be accomplished by overriding the method for the view-obscured case.

### Detectability

Each object defines a method, isDetectable(actor, sense, level). This method takes an actor, a sense, and a transparency level and returns true or nil to indicate whether or not the object is detectable in that sense from that transparency level. This will be used by the scoping mechanism, description list generators, and the like.

Note that this method will never be called with the "opaque" level. Objects are never detectable to a sense when sensed through a barrier opaque to that sense, hence it will never be necessary to ask an individual object whether or not it's detectable in this case.

The default Thing class will define a basic implementation of this method appropriate for Medium objects. In addition, the various size class mix-in classes (Large, Loud, etc) will override this as appropriate.

The default rules will work like this:

- For vision, an object is detectable or not according to the size and transparency rules. A Large object is detectable at any transparency level; a Medium object is detectable at any level; and a Small object is detectable only at the "transparent" level.
- For sound and smell, the default Thing class always returns nil. Default objects produce no sound or odor, so they do not make their presence known by these senses alone; hence they are not detectable by these senses. The library will provide classes for "odor" and "sound" objects, which will return true for sound and smell according to the transparency level and whether the odor or sound is actually being emitted at the moment.
- For touch, the default Thing class will always return nil, except that it will return true for any object in the actor's possession which the actor has ever seen or moved. (Thus, the only items in the actor's possession that the actor cannot sense by touch are those that are inside other objects which the actor put into inventory directly without examining their contents. We thus allow an actor to identify by touch anything they're carrying and have identified before, but we don't allow an actor to identify something for the first time by touch alone.)
- For taste, the default Thing class will always return nil.

Note that, for taste and touch, in most cases it will make no sense to define materials that pass these senses at anything other than "transparent" or "opaque" levels. Overriding methods will not normally have to worry about other levels for these senses.

Note that the isDetectable(actor, sense, level) method doesn't tell us whether something is accessible for that sense: we already know it's accessible if and only if there's a path to the object whose compounded transparency level is not "opaque." The purpose of this method is to determine if an actor is passively aware of the object: in other words, if the object is somehow telegraphing its presence through some sense channel that (a) the actor can sense, and (b) allows the actor to identify the object.

For vision, this is easy, since it seems reasonable to assume that an actor is aware of everything within sight.

For sound and smell, objects by default make no noise and emit no odor, hence they cannot be detected this way. However, if an object is making a sound or emitting an odor, it might or might not make sense for an actor to be able to identify the object by that sound or odor. This is covered separately below.

### Sound and Smell

Sound and smell are different from vision in an important respect. If we can see something, we can identify it, at least to the degree that it makes sense for the game to describe the object to us. If we can hear or smell something, though, we might or might not be able to identify the source. We must make provisions for this difference from vision.

Consider these cases:

- We are in a room and smell a strong odor of decay. It turns out that it's coming from a corpse in the next room, but we've never been to the other room and so we don't know what's causing the odor.
- Later, we visit the room with the corpse. Because it's not nailed down, we pick up the corpse and carry it with us for a while, eventually tiring of it and dropping it in another location.
- Later still, we visit a room adjacent to the room where we dropped the corpse. Here we can smell the strong odor of decay coming from the next room. Because the odor is distinctive, we know it's coming from the corpse.

Clearly, unlike vision, an object cannot be considered in scope only because it is detectable by sound or smell. If we don't know the source of the sound or smell, the object shouldn't be in scope; if the sound or odor is distinctive, we should be able to identify the object based on the sense, hence the emitting object should be in scope. In either case, though, the sound or smell itself must be in scope. How do we handle this dichotomy?

The approach that seems best to me is to use two objects: one for the source of the sound or odor, and a separate object for the sound or odor itself.

To do this, the library would provide an Audible class and a Smellable class. The Audible class would have a property, 'mySound', giving the associated Sound object; the Smellable class would have a property, 'myOdor', giving the associated Odor object. Smellable and Audible would process "smell x" and "listen to x" commands, respectively.

The Sound/Odor object has an isOn property that specifies whether or not it is currently active. This can be used for intermittent sounds and odors; for persistent ones, isOn would always be true. The object would return true for its isDetectable() method whenever isOn is true.

Audible and Smellable would have another property, 'distinctive', that specifies whether or not the associated sound/odor is enough for a player to identify the object. (Or maybe this should be associated with the Smell/Odor object?) If this property is true, and the object has been seen before (i.e., its isSeen property is true), then the Audible/Smellable's isDetectable() method defers to the associated Sound/Odor object. The idea is that, if the sound/odor is distinctive to this object, then once the player has been able to identify the object iself (by virtue of having seen it), the player can from that point forward sense the presence of the object whenever they can sense the associated sound/odor.

The nice thing about this approach is that it seems to handle the scoping issues correctly. Whenever a sound/odor is within range of our senses, the library will describe the sound/odor, and will let us refer to the sound/odor object itself: we can thus "smell odor of decay" or "listen to alarm sound." In addition, if the sound/odor is distinctive and we've identified its source, the source will also be in scope, hence whenever we smell the odor of decay we can "smell corpse" and the like, as long as we have reason to know the corpse is the source of the odor.

For the game author, this is slightly more work than putting the description of the sound/odor in the source object itself, since it's necessary to set up a second object and point the first object to the second; but it shouldn't be a lot of extra work, since the sound/odor object itself should be extremely simple boilerplate.

### Containment Relationships

The relationship between an object and its container is defined by the container. A given type of container has only one type of relationship with its contents. This is the same as the adv.t model: an object can be a regular container (such as a box), or a surface (such as a countertop), but not both.

The 'contents' property gives a list of the objects that are contained within an object. The 'contents property will always be a complete list of the contents of an object. This is a big difference from the adv.t model, where an object's contents were not always complete; in particular, floating items always had to be considered separately, since they were never added to any contents lists.

The representation of an object's location varies by object type. The basic Thing class defines a single-location representation. Other mix-in classes can be used when defining an object, however, to change this behavior; these mix-in classes replace the methods related to the object's location representation, so must be inherited before Thing or any subclass of Thing in order to override the default location representation. This is important: the representation of an object's location is entirely private to the object. We will define an abstract interface to the methods that manipulate an object's location; all references to an object's location must be made through this abstract interface. Using the abstract interface will ensure that we can define alternative location representations without having to scatter tests for the type of representation throughout the library or throughout a game.

Note that the mix-in classes derive simply from 'object', so these will create no confusion for multiple inheritance. The mix-in classes will simply override the location representation and interface, and nothing else.

Thing: The basic Thing class defines a default single-location representation. The property 'location' gives the containing object.

Multi-Parent Items: A multi-parent mix-in class provides for objects that exist in more than one location simultaneously. These can be used for objects that span more than one location or container, such as ropes and ladders. Moving one of these items to a new location will automatically remove it from all of its prior locations, but the mix-in class will also provide an extended interface that allows explicit addition or deletion of a location.

Multi-Parent Items with Automatic Initialization: A simple extension of the regular multi-parent mix-in class provides for objects whose initial locations are specified via a condition, rather than via an explicit list. During pre-initialization, the library will initialize each of these objects by testing every Room object against the object's location condition, and adding the object to each location that passes the condition test. Alternatively, the condition can be specified in terms of a particular object class, so that the object is automatically added to the contents of each instance of the given class (for example, we might want to define an object that appears in each OutsideRoom).

Dynamic Floating Items: The most problematic part of the contents model has always been "floating" items, which are items that appear in more than one location, and whose presence in a given location can vary according to the state of the object, the state of the location, the state of an actor, or other factors.

In the adv.t model, most items that were defined as floating were actually quite static, so we have tried to reduce the number of true floating items that most games will require through the static multi-parent classes. However, it's impossible to eliminate dynamic floating items entirely; there will always be cases where an object should be present according to specific conditions that can vary from turn to turn.

To satisfy the invariant that an object's contents are always listed in its 'contents' list, we will handle true dynamic floating items by moving them in or out of their containers during the initialization phase of each turn. This might seem inefficient - we'll have to visit all such items at the start of every turn, and process their conditions. However, this is actually a good deal more efficient than the adv.t approach, which required scanning all of the floating items for every scope/access check - these checks can occur several times in the course of processing a single command. Hence, it seems much better to process dynamic floating items once per turn, since this not only should be less work overall, but allows us to impose our complete-contents-list invariant, which should substantially simplify certain aspects of scope and access computation.

### Container Types

We define the following types of containers.

Thing: The basic Thing class, which is the root of all "physical" objects in a game, is a type of container. It was perhaps not obvious, but this was the case in the adv.t model as well. When a Thing contains an object, the contained object is effectively a "part" of the Thing: it moves along with the parent object, and is detectable to any sense to which the parent object is detectable. Contents of a Thing are thus external features of the Thing, and act as though they were attached to the outside of the Thing.

Even though a Thing can contain things, because they act like parts of the Thing, it is not normally possible for the player to add or remove contents through commands. For this reason, with the adv.t model, contents of a Thing were normally of class fixeditem to ensure they could not be removed from their container. In the TADS 3 model, we will add a Part class for contents of a Thing. A Part is for most purposes equivalent to an adv.t fixeditem, but we will distinguish this class, mostly to provide more customized error messages (such as "That's a part of <<its container>>" rather than "You can't have that").

Thing does not accept player commands to add or remove contents.

Because the contents of a Thing are normally fixed features of the object, a Thing does not normally produce a list of its contents in the course of displaying a full description; it is assumed that the custom descriptive text (the "ldesc") describes the contents to the extent the author wanted them described.

Surface: An object that can have objects placed on top of it. Surfaces do not enclose their contents, so the contents of a surface are detectable to any sense to which the containing surface is detectable.

Surfaces allow a command such as "put object on surface" and "take object off of surface"; such commands differ only superficially from the equivalents for a container, since ultimately a Surface represents the containment relationship the same way that any other container does.

Surface also provides customized messages that describe its contents as being "on" it rather than "in" it.

Container: A Container completely encloses its contents. A Container can be either open or closed. When it is open, a Container's contents are detectable to all senses to which the Container is detectable; an open Container

When a Container is closed, its contents are detectable to a sense only to the degree that the material from which the Container is constructed is transparent to the sense. The method canSenseContents(senseObject) calls the Container's material object's method canSenseThrough(senseObject) and returns the result.

As implied above, a Container has a property giving the material of which it is made. By default, a Container is made of adventium, but the 'material' property can be set to a specific material for different effects. Adventium is opaque to all senses, hence the default behavior of a Container is the same as in the adv.t model.

Even though a Container has an open/closed state, it doesn't accept player commands to open or close it.

OpenableContainer: A combination of Openable and Container that the player can open and close using commands.

LockableContainer: A combination of Lockable, Openable, and Container that the player can open and close as well as lock and unlock using commands.

KeyedContainer: A combination of LockableWithKey, Openable, and Container that the player can open and close, as well as lock and unlock using a specified key, using commands.

### Openable and Lockable Objects

The library provides several "mix-in" classes that can be used to add a set of commands to an existing object. We call them "mix-in" classes because they can be mixed in with other superclasses, via multiple inheritance, to mix the behavior of the multiple superclasses together.

Mix-in classes have an important features that makes them different from other classes in the library: these classes are based directly on "object" or on other mix-in classes, not on Thing or other basic library classes. This makes it easy to combine mix-in classes with classes derived from Thing or other library classes: because mix-ins don't add all of the Thing methods, mix-ins don't create any conflict in the priority of methods inherited from other library classes.

Openable: Provides "open" and "close" verb handling. Override hooks allow derived classes and objects to provide custom messages in response to the verbs, to specify custom conditions to allow or disallow the verbs, and to receive notification of state changes so they can perform any special side effects. Openable automatically handles default logic checks and action for "open" and "close." In addition, the class is designed to interoperate with Lockable, in that it checks its locked/unlock status in the course of its default processing.

Lockable: Provides "lock" and "unlock" verb handling. Override hooks allow derived classes and objects to provide custom messages, conditions, and state change processing. Note that Openable is designed to interopreate with Lockable.

LockableWithKey: A subclass of Lockable that specifies a set of objects that serve as a key for the lock. This class accepts commands of the form "lock object with object" and "unlock object with object," where the indirect object must be in the list of valid keys specified for the instance. An object based on LockableWithKey cannot be locked or unlocked without the key.

### Connections Between Rooms

In the adv.t model, the only way for an object to be "connected" to another was through containment; the model had no provision for allowing access (through scope or validation) to an object in one top-level container (i.e., a room) by an actor in another. This was a serious limitation, and authors routinely had to invent ad hoc approaches when a game situation called for connected rooms. The one concession adv.t made was "nested rooms," which allowed for locations within other locations: chairs, beds, platforms, closets, cages.

The need for connected rooms arises in numerous situations. Common examples (apart from the nested room examples above) include a window that looks into another room or out onto an outside location, a very large open area divided into several discrete locations, or two adjacent rooms where the passage between them provides visibility from one into the other. Less common but still important situations include an actor talking on a phone to an actor in another room and a room visible through a closed-circuit television display.

The TADS 3 library model provides a Connector class that makes it easy to connect rooms. The Room class has a 'connections' property that contains a list of the objects in the room that connect the room to other rooms. During pre-initialization, the library will set up each room's 'connections' list much as it sets up 'contents' lists, and during execution the Room class will maintain its 'connections' list in parallel with its 'contents' list: each time an object is added to or removed from the 'contents' list, the object will also be added to or removed from the 'connections' list if the object is a connector.

A Connector has a material, just as a Container does, and the material serves the same purpose as it does for a container: whenever we must check to see if a sense can cross through the connector to reach the connected room, we will do so by checking the connector's material.

A Connector has an open/closed state, just as a Containe does, and the state serves the same purpose as it does for a container: when we check for a sense crossing through the connector, we allow the sense to pass freely if the connector is open, otherwise we check the material. A Connector must have an open/closed state to allow for doors, windows, and other connections that can be opened or closed.

A Connector will normally be a physical object in the rooms it connects, so in most cases setting up a Connector is quite trivial: simply create a Connector subclass for the window, passageway, phone, or other object connecting the room, and put it in the connected locations. The pre-initialization code will automatically set up the containing rooms by placing the Connector object in the 'connections' lists for the rooms. Thus, coding a window is simply a matter of creating a Connector that is fixed in place, has the appropriate vocabulary words, and has a material type of Glass.

Some connectors will not show up as game objects; these can be coded simply by creating objects without any associated vocabulary.

Note that connectors don't have any directional information. Thus, there's no need to specify that a window is in the west wall, for example. This information would add nothing to the model, since the model doesn't have any information about the relative locations of things within a room beyond containment relationships. (The only command that would seem to be able to make use of such information would be something like "look west"; this isn't a traditional "core" command, though, so it's not clear if it's worth complicating the model to support it.)

### Doors

A special situation involving room connections is doors; what makes a door special is that it can be opened and closed.

In the adv.t model, a single doorway usually was built out of two door objects. This won't be necessary in most cases with the tads 3 library, because a door can instead be placed in two locations to represent the two sides of the door. However, the tads 3 model should still allow for two-sided doors, because there are times when a door's two sides behave differently; for example, a typical house's entry doors can be locked and unlocked without a key from the inside, but require a key from the outside.

One is tempted to define doors as a subclass of connectors, because they seem in some ways to serve a similar function. However, I think this has too much potential for confusion, and that it would be better to model a door and its connector separately. Note that it is often undesirable for a door to serve as a connector, because in many cases the game author won't want two rooms to have any sense connection even though there's a travel connection.

Instead, each door will have an optional property that gives its associated Connection object. This property will be nil by default, since we will usually only want doors to provide a travel function, not a connection function. If the property is set, then the door will use it to keep the connector's open/closed state synchronized with that of the door.

The library provides several types of door-like classes. Objects of these classes can be specified instead of Room objects in a Room's direction properties.

Doorway: A passageway between rooms. A Doorway can't be opened or closed - it's simply a passageway. This class accepts commands such as "enter x" and "go through x" to initiate travel through the passage.

Enterable: This is a mix-in class that is similar in function to a Doorway, but is more generic. Enterable can be combined with other classes to provide an "enter" command for an object. This can be used, for example, to implement an object representing a building. The class provides an override hook that lets the object specify the location to which to travel when an actor applies the "enter" command to the object (in most cases, an Enterable isn't actually a location, but is simply a link to a location).

Building: For convenience, the library defines the Building class. This is simply a fixed item of the "large" size class that includes Enterable in its classes.

Door: A door that can be opened and closed, and also serves as a passage between rooms. This class includes the Openable mix-in to provide "open" and "close" verbs.

A Door can optionally specify a "secondary" Door through a property object - a secondary door serves as the "other side" of this door. A Door with an associated secondary object will automatically keep the secondary object's state synchronized with this door's state. During initialization, the library scans all Door instances; for each Door with a secondary door, the library automatically sets the secondary door to point back to its primary; much as the primary door keeps the secondary door synchronized, the secondary door delegates all state change operations to the primary door for processing.

LockableDoor: This class combines Door and Lockable to create a door that can be locked and unlocked. This class automatically keeps an associated secondary door's locked/unlocked state synchronized.

KeyedDoor: This class combines Door and LockableWithKey to create a door that can be locked and unlocked with a key.

Note that a linked primary/secondary pair of doors need not be of exactly the same type. In particular, a KeyedDoor can be paired with a LockableDoor to create a typical house entry door that requires a key on the outside but not on the inside. Similarly, a LockableDoor (or a KeyedDoor) could be paired with a regular Door to create a door that locks on one side but not the other.

Note: it might be necessary to distinguish between a door that exists in both of its connected locations, and a door that is part of a primary/secondary pair, because the two types of doors would have to determine their destination location differently. In the case of a linked pair, one side's destination is simply the other side's location. In the case of a single door with multiple locations, the other side is the location (from the location list) that the actor isn't currently in. It would be preferable to handle this in the class rather than with something like a propType() check on location, since these types of datatype checks create brittleness and are to be avoided.

### Travel

In the adv.t model, when the player typed a direction command, the library checked to see if the object found in a directional property was marked as an "obstacle" (such as a door), and applied special handling if so.

The TADS 3 model dispenses with the type check. Instead, the library simply requires that each object referenced by a Room's directional properties implement a method, enterInto(actor). This method performs the necessary operations to process travel by the actor in a direction that named this object as its destination:

- Room implements this method by causing the actor to travel to the room.
- Door and the like implement this method by, first, checking to see that the travel is possible (executing implicit commands such as "open door" first, as appropriate), then delegating processing to the door's destination's enterInto(actor) method.
- Any other objects (such as custom game objects) used as direction destinations must provide their own appropriate processing.