I think most people would love it if they could change the font size or font ( I think if there will be a folder from which font will be loaded is made with a default font in it and you can change that font with any other font )
1 Like
Thought about it… now I have a question or two.
Is there a limit to the number of things we can store in @{}
Also, instead of “multireplace” how would you feel about calling @{} an array? (or an “at array” if that’s catchier)
*Gaaassspp 
Finally, I found a proper use for @{} “multireplace” instead of a simple -s suffix!
Oh, yes ppl. It’s handy for your inventory stats page.
[b]Items[/b]
@{(item_matches = 0) |a match,|two matches,|some matches,}
@{(item_cigar = 0} |a cigar,|some cigars,}
@{(item_hp = 0) |a healing potion,|2 healing potions,|3 healing potions,}
Still, need to decide when will you go into “some” instead of actual numbers, but I think it can be improved considering you can nest {} inside an @{{}}
2 Likes
This actually won’t do what you expect. The parentheses are binary tests, and true/false converts to 1/2, so you will only have the blanks or “a match,” “a cigar,” or “a healing potion” displayed, never “two” or “some”.
Maybe try:
*if (item_hp >= 1) @{(item_hp = 1) a healing potion,|${item_hp} healing potions,}
Anyway, I’m really happy to see the @{} feature added. Enums, plus compact text substitution, all in the same concise syntax, is great.
@dfabulich I think the @{} syntax merits description on the Advanced Choicescript page.
4 Likes
Well, you’ve improved my theory, then!
[Achievement acquired]
Besides, I don’t think creating @{} for inventory where the number count of that certain item can go beyond 999 is plausible 
@dfabulich Just out of curiosity, is nestable multireplace a potential future addition or just a flat-out impossibility? Multireplace alone is already spectacular, but I’ve oh so longed to nest them on several occasions.
Do you mean by nested multireplace is something like this?
*if nest
@{hablah true|false}
If that’s the case, I believe it’s already doable.
1 Like
Yeah, a combination of *if statements with multireplace is possible, but I’d be looking for something more like
@{damage+1 You miss.|You do 1 damage with your @{weapon sword|dagger|mace|carrot}.}
Totally fake example, but yes I’m dealing with a lot of ifs that could be much more elegant with nested (or nested in nested—a girl can dream, right?) mutireplace.
Humm… I can see where’s your question comes from.
When you think about it, I think your code can be like this
@{damage+1 You miss.|You do 1 damage with your ${weapon sword|dagger|mace|carrot}.}
considering @{@{}} is not a possible combination. Not yet, at least.
But I admit, coding *set weapon 123 is much faster and more practical than *set weapon "carrot".
Whilst I agree this would be cool, I get the impression it might be abused and lead to some really hard to read code?
1 Like
You may not be able to do it directly with a single line of code, but you can do it indirectly.
*temp temp1 "@{weapon sword|dagger|mace|carrot}"
@{damage+1 You miss.|You do 1 damage with your ${temp1}.}
I tested, and it seems to work exactly as expected! It’s not quite nested, but it may simplify a mess of *if commands anyway.
6 Likes
Nice idea, I’ll have to check if that would help with any of my code. I’ve mostly ended up either combining with *if statements or separating the multireplaces across multiple variables.
Haha, perhaps too much nesting would get a little out of hand. Seeing how much more compact my code is thanks to multireplace, though, I’d imagine that 1 nested level could actually still make the code clearer. But I could be wrong!
Sure, it’s not at all a necessary feature, but then neither are many of the more programming-heavy features, yet they can be really helpful to people who do choose to utilize them. Anyway, it’s just me dreaming!
Question about multireplace:
If I have numerous places where I want to check if a particular variable is over a certain quantity, is code like this acceptable?
@{(languages + 59) the foreign tongue | Deeplandish}
It’s tidier than
*if (languages > 60)
Deeplandish
*if (languages <= 60)
the foreign tongue
I hesitate to just use a variable because the checks aren’t all quite the same, and besides, this way I can tweak the text to its surrounding prose.
Is there any reason why this would be a bad idea?
It would be @{(languages <= 59) the foreign tongue | Deeplandish} in this case. You want the first part to be something an *if will see as either true or false, whereas language + 59 is just a number.
2 Likes
@ParrotWatcher But the numbers are 60 and 61, right…and oh, I see. Wooops. XD Thanks so much! I’ll sort that.
Sorry, 60, yes. I missed that part. 
1 Like
And I missed basically everything logical. ;p This makes this whole passage work so much better, though, yay! Thanks again, very much obliged.
Just a quick-guide to help anyone understand how the syntax works.
*set lamp 1
@{(lamp = 1) on|off}
1 Like
Right, thank you.
I’d been using multireplace properly for variables where, for instance, biting_daisies = 1 (or 2, 3, 4, etc.) but then it occurred to me that multireplace would be really useful for some of my on/off *if flavour text. But I nearly implemented it all wrong, because my way would have only worked if the player had exactly 60 or 61 in languages. I hadn’t thought it through properly; too excited about ending the endless string of *if statements, I suppose.
4 Likes
Actually, it would’ve thrown an error. I drew up a little test file while I was composing my reply (which then got ninja’d to the point I didn’t need to post anymore.) My code looked like this:
*create languages 50
You hear people conversing in @{(languages + 59) the foreign tongue|Deeplandish}.
It gave me the following error:
line 7 of startup: invalid @{} at letter 31; ‘languages + 59’ is equal to 109 but there are only 2 options
2 Likes