Support, though this topic is way old.

Support!

53 75 70 70 6f 72 74
If you can decode that, I congratulate you.

IronBit_Studios wrote:

53 75 70 70 6f 72 74
If you can decode that, I congratulate you.

“Support”

I didn't decode that, but it is the same length and has the same character twice in a row.

Support!
Workaround please?

 say [thank u!] 

Support!
Workaround please?

 say [thank u!] 

Support.

Support

4655925 wrote:

when green flag clicked

Please don't blockspam or necropost.

Support. (Redirected here.)

semi support
i support

([string] contains [string]::operators)

but not for

([string] contains [digits/letters]::operators)

because it's workaroundable

if <((string) * (1)) = (string)> then
    // digit
else
//letter
end

Charmind wrote:

semi support
i support

([string] contains [string]::operators)

but not for

([string] contains [digits/letters]::operators)

because it's workaroundable

if <((string) * (1)) = (string)> then
    // digit
else
//letter
end

The purpose isn't to decide if a variable contains a numerical value vs a string - as you say, that has an easy workaround (of several). Nor is it to determine what each character of a variable is (though it can be used like that).

Note that I suggested it says "contains a letter“, ”contains a digit“, etc. Both of those statements can be true of the same string - e.g. ”abc123“ does contain a letter and a digit.

One of the reasons I made it like this is the possibility of avoiding having to use a loop to go through a string character by character, using ”letter of" to test each one (though there will likely be many cases where you would do that - e.g. to get the case of each letter, which is currently a bit of a pain to do).

And having the ability to drop in a variable/expression on the right side means it contains that extra useful flexibility of acting as a substring check, which is also currently only possible in a character-by-character loop, as you're no doubt aware.

All such loops slow down Scratch execution, since it has to translate all the scripting block-by-block. By having such functionality built-in instead, it becomes possible to speed up certain things quite significantly…

+999999 we need this! I know there are work around but they are not as easy and does not work like an easy bool!

herohamp wrote:

+999999 we need this! I know there are work around but they are not as easy and does not work like an easy bool!

EDIT: Actually it wasn't a necropost lol

I I reposted this and paddle2see just said post on the old one soooo…

alexphan wrote:

herohamp wrote:

+999999 we need this! I know there are work around but they are not as easy and does not work like an easy bool!

Please don't necropost.

I I reposted this and paddle2see just said post on the old one soooo…

herohamp wrote:

I I reposted this and paddle2see just said post on the old one soooo…

Oh, you made a duplicate topic, I see.
Well your post did :add to the discussion" anyway, so

scratch can't tell the difference between caps and lowercase

pvz_pro wrote:

scratch can't tell the difference between caps and lowercase

Scratch can, but they've make uppercase and lowercase act as equal for simplicity. There are workarounds, but it would be much easier to make a single block to do that instead of performing huge workarounds.