Should we add <ORDER-TREE? REVERSE-DEFINED>? Not so fast...

[eriktorbjorn]

At some point in late 1985, it appears the behavior of ZILCH changed in how it generates the object tree. ZILF, by default, emulates the older behavior. Usually the object trees aren't identical, but the children of an object are generally ordered the same way as in the original release.

In practical terms, Ballyhoo and all subsequent games use a different tree ordering, and this can potentially cause problems when compiling the game with ZILF. For most games the solution seems pretty clear: Add <ORDER-TREE? REVERSE-DEFINED>.

But here we have a game that was originally release with one tree ordering, and then later re-released with a different tree ordering. So should we try to emulate the Solid Gold release, or should we assume that the original release is closer to the author's original intention?

As an example, here's what opening the pocket on your gown looks like in the original release, and in the Solid Gold release when compiled with ZILF:

>OPEN POCKET
Opening your gown reveals a thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what
it is, a buffered analgesic, and pocket fluff.

Here's what it looks like in the official Solid Gold release, and in one compiled with ZILF and <ORDER-TREE? REVERSE-DEFINED>:

>OPEN POCKET
Opening your gown reveals a buffered analgesic, pocket fluff, and a thing your
aunt gave you which you don't know what it is.

Which of the two should we try to emulate?