Is "I"/Inspect entirely redundant?

[Raerick]

Originally Posted by Nick

Correct. There is a lot of redundancy in the command system due to people having requested many different ways of accessing it over the years

Originally Posted by malcontent

Yeah, good point, essentially the same as "w" then "-". I wonder why the "I" display does not also show the weight? Not a big deal. Just wondering.

This is a good point and something I thought before as well before just settling for my method. The general information of an inspected object should list its weight, especially for equipment. It would be more convenient.

[smbhax]

Originally Posted by Raerick

I believe (but may be wrong) that the reason the I switch exists in the inventory command is because the I command exists. Similarly (q)uaff exists as its own command, but you can also select a potion and quaff it from inventory with q. It is that way for consistency of commands. I never use I independently, but if there are some that do why change it? What would you make I do if you could change it? Just removing it because it is redundant without a clear replacement seems wasteful. It already exists and hurts nothing by existing, and may due to the way all inventory commands interlock in the code be necessary without a rewrite.

Reasons for reducing redundant functions include streamlining the code base and increasing comprehensibility for new users.

Quaff, Eat, Zap, etc are useful in a few ways: they show the relevant subset of items, and they reduce required key presses by one. Possibly "I" does the latter, I'm not sure.

(Infra Arcana for instance has most traditional usage commands rolled up into a big action item list accessed with "a," but I definitely find myself missing "q" for potions and "r" for scrolls ("manuscripts") in that game. Also "quaff" is just a fun word to be able to think to yourself. ; )