feature request - spellbook number OPTION

[fph]

True... so then why not treat the books like they are inscribed... without inscribing them?

There is another solution, which is probably simpler. The spellbook selection prompt need not be a "regular" object-in-inventory selection prompt; instead, it might be a hard-coded prompt in which you are guaranteed to get the "right" letters (a or 1 always select spellbook 1, or does nothing if you don't have it).

[Nolendil]

I think that's what Sirridan suggested too.
This idea seems better than the others suggested here.
However, I feel that if this is implemented for m/p command, it should be the same for other commands for coherency reasons (except there could be empty slots for books to respect the order which is probably useless when selecting another kind of item).
Anyway, I think the numbers should not be automatically associated with items as it could conflict with @0-9 inscriptions.

[buzzkill]

Place usable spell books in your inventory and assign them their proper number rather than the usual letter. Unusable spell books would would be treated as any other object.

Thus, your inventory may look something like this...

1. The first spell book available to your class
2. The second spell book available
4. The fourth spell book
6. The sixth book (second dungeon book)
e. An unusable spell book
f. 3 rations of food

No inscription, hidden inscription or auto-inscription needed. No possibility of selecting the wrong book.

[PowerDiver]

Place usable spell books in your inventory and assign them their proper number rather than the usual letter. Unusable spell books would would be treated as any other object.

This makes dropping things a bit weird, but I guess that is no big deal. More importantly, it interferes with the quiver, which I believe is sufficiently popular that it is sure to make it into V eventually.

What's the big deal with command-specific choices? We've already got them for using items from piles where perhaps k-c and r-a refer to the same object. I simply cannot understand why it could be a problem to use m1 and da to refer to the same object. I already use m1 and f1 and z1 to refer to different objects, so I know those are not a problem.