I spotted this while playing with the “ownership” relation:
[code]Ownership relates various things to one animal.
The verb to be owned by means the ownership relation.
Mr Socks is an animal.
The badge is a thing. It is owned by Mr Socks.
The scarf is a thing which is owned by Mr Socks.
The Garden of Confusing Relationships is a room.
All the animals are in the garden.[/code]
When you run this code, you see that Mr Socks and the scarf are in the garden: e.g. Inform thinks both of them are animals. And in fact you can confirm that the relationships have been parsed backwards:
>relationships
Ownership relates various things to one animal:
The badge >=> Mr Socks
Mr Socks >=> the scarf
To me, the clause “which is owned by” should be grammatically equivalent to a new sentence starting “It is owned by.”
Is this a bug? Or a subtle feature I’m misunderstanding?
The badge is a thing. It is owned by Mr Socks.
The scarf is owned by Mr Socks.
So does
The badge is a thing. It is owned by Mr Socks.
The scarf is a thing owned by Mr Socks.
Perhaps Inform is hanging up on more than one “is” in the same declaration? “is a thing which is”?
So… I’ve tried to raise a bug on the Mantis tracker, but the signup is broken.
Who should I get in contact about that?
[rant]On first signup attempt, it didn’t send a registration email.
I eventually tried a Password reset, got the email, but it says the account is disabled.
Second attempt, I tried with a backup email address. This time I got the email. All looks good.
But the account is marked as disabled.[/rant]
Thanks matt w! I spotted that I was logging in with my email address rather than username (because so many sites allow/prefer that these days…) oh well…