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
Perhaps the following is correct: A girl and her flowers. @{(girl = 1) daisies|sunflowers}
2 Likes
So here 1 means she has daisies and 2 means she has sunflowers, right? If you wanted to replace flowers, you’d use:
A girl and her @{girl daisies|sunflowers}.
At least, if I’m understanding correctly. Then if you wanted her to have other flowers for values of 3 and 4 and what have you, as long as one keeps track of what number equates to what state, it’s possible to just expand into
A girl and her @{girl daisies|sunflowers|nasturtiums|Venus flytraps}.
3 Likes
I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but if you set a character’s gender variable as numeric instead of a string, you can simplify plural-variant verbs for “they/them” pronouns. For example:
*fake_choice
#Non-binary.
*set gender 1
*set they "they"
#Female.
*set gender 2
*set they "she"
#Male.
*set gender 3
*set they "he"
Then you can insert things like @{gender teach|teaches|teaches} or @{gender go|goes|goes} inline instead of breaking your sentences apart to use structures things like:
*if gender = "non-binary"
teach
*if gender != "non-binary"
teaches
*if gender = "non-binary"
go
*if gender != "non-binary"
goes
And you can use that in conjunction with (or instead of) pronoun variables:
$!{they} @{gender go|goes|goes} to the market every Saturday morning.
@{gender They go|She goes|He goes} to the market every Saturday morning.
Edit: You can leave an option within the multireplace blank as well. So you could also do:
$!{they} go@{gender |es|es} to the market every Saturday morning.
9 Likes
Great implementations!
As for a name, why not go with what it really is - switch case?
Also, please reflect all of these updates at your page. Would make sense if budding authors would be cognizant of all what ChoiceScript has to offer.