>In my previous post I tried to give detail explanations how
>wield command are supposed to work. At first glance it may
>look complicated (though actually it is simplier than the
>current system).

That is one opinion :) Chaining however many commands together doesn't make things easier for someone completely new to the game in my opinion.

>So now I feel that is also useful to give
>overview and some clarification to my proposal.
>
>First of all, metacommands described in my proposal are
>virtual commands. They can be mapped on real commands the way
>implementator is choosing.
>For example, "primary" command may be implemented as "wield"
>and "offhand" command may be implemented as "dual".
>
>Below I will give some quick comparison for my proposal vs.
>the current system so you would see that proposed syntax is
>not more complicated.
>
>

>My proposal        What is does     Current system
>primary <weapon>   wields
>primary    wield <weapon>
>offhand <item>     wields
>offhand    dual <weapon> or
>wear <item>
>remprimary         removes
>primary   remove <weapon>
>remoffhand         removes
>offhand   remove <weapon/item>
>

>
>So you may see that in 99% of cases 99% of characters will
>work with four commands. Right now they are already working
>with similar four commands which are less clear because of
>many possible outcomes.

And that is the idea behind changing wield to always work. 99% of the time, 99% of the characters (all of which have wield) will have an expected outcome of success.

Dual-wield will not always have an expected outcome of success given that the biggest bonus to defenses is based on the primary wield. A dual-wield will provide some bonus, but it is better to guarantee the primary in any situation in my opinion.

I also don't think you need to have specific remove functions just for your primary/dual/held items.