stickfiregames wrote:

Why would it be needed?

stickfiregames wrote:

Why would it be needed?

stickfiregames wrote:

Why would it be needed?

stickfire-test wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

What? I'm finding this really hard to follow.

If it's what I think it is, these blocks would let you work around it as well as having other uses:

(position of [] in [] :: operators) // returns the position, or nothing if the substring can't be found
(letters () to () of [] :: operators)

support for them instead, because they're less complicated.

No, because you're finding what the answer is - Not inputting the answer and seeing where it's located.

I still don't really get what it does. Why don't you give it a more descriptive name than a bunch of semicolons?

Aboot4 wrote:

stickfire-test wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

What? I'm finding this really hard to follow.

If it's what I think it is, these blocks would let you work around it as well as having other uses:

(position of [] in [] :: operators) // returns the position, or nothing if the substring can't be found
(letters () to () of [] :: operators)

support for them instead, because they're less complicated.

No, because you're finding what the answer is - Not inputting the answer and seeing where it's located.

I still don't really get what it does. Why don't you give it a more descriptive name than a bunch of semicolons?

The semi colons are separators. And I explained every single aspect of it very clearly in the first post. Maybe re-read it?

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

stickfire-test wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

What? I'm finding this really hard to follow.

If it's what I think it is, these blocks would let you work around it as well as having other uses:

(position of [] in [] :: operators) // returns the position, or nothing if the substring can't be found
(letters () to () of [] :: operators)

support for them instead, because they're less complicated.

No, because you're finding what the answer is - Not inputting the answer and seeing where it's located.

I still don't really get what it does. Why don't you give it a more descriptive name than a bunch of semicolons?

The semi colons are separators. And I explained every single aspect of it very clearly in the first post. Maybe re-read it?

The first post is a bit long, so some Scratchers may have found it hard to follow. If you separated your ideas into well-defined paragraphs and put a tl;dr summary at the bottom, perhaps more people would understand.

Aboot4 wrote:

No, because you're finding what the answer is - Not inputting the answer and seeing where it's located.

(letters () to () step () of ())

iamunknown2 wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

No, because you're finding what the answer is - Not inputting the answer and seeing where it's located.

Why don't you do

(letters () to () step () of ())

?
Why would you need to specify where to start from?

Aboot4 wrote:

iamunknown2 wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

No, because you're finding what the answer is - Not inputting the answer and seeing where it's located.

Why don't you do

(letters () to () step () of ())

?
Why would you need to specify where to start from?

Because that's not really what I'm looking for.

Why would you need to specify where to start from?

iamunknown2 wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

iamunknown2 wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

No, because you're finding what the answer is - Not inputting the answer and seeing where it's located.

Why don't you do

(letters () to () step () of ())

?
Why would you need to specify where to start from?

Because that's not really what I'm looking for.

Why would you need to specify where to start from?

That's my question. Addition is there for a reason, you know…

KryptykProductions wrote:

Okay, I found this from your project and I haven't really read it all way but…
I read the first part and caught a *potential* error. I may be completely wrong but don't judge because my eyes are hurting from staring at my monitor all day.

Here goes:
When explaining the first input (starting locale) you say that the 3~02468 = 4. That would mean we'd be counting the first digit as 1 and so on, right?
Well, later you say that 2(3~02468) is 8, and that we started from 2 instead of 0.
Except we DIDN'T start from 0. We started BEFORE 0. Which is why 0 was our 1st digit, yes?
So on those grounds, shouldn't we start counting with our number outside the parenthesis {x(blahblah)} ?
So wouldn't 2(3~02468) = 6?
Or something like that? Maybe?

I'm not sure. I started doubting myself halfway through that myself. Oh well.
Anyways, this is neat but I don't really see how this would get used. Sorry.
Now I have to go read the rest before I burn my retinas.

Aboot4 wrote:

KryptykProductions wrote:

Okay, I found this from your project and I haven't really read it all way but…
I read the first part and caught a *potential* error. I may be completely wrong but don't judge because my eyes are hurting from staring at my monitor all day.

Here goes:
When explaining the first input (starting locale) you say that the 3~02468 = 4. That would mean we'd be counting the first digit as 1 and so on, right?
Well, later you say that 2(3~02468) is 8, and that we started from 2 instead of 0.
Except we DIDN'T start from 0. We started BEFORE 0. Which is why 0 was our 1st digit, yes?
So on those grounds, shouldn't we start counting with our number outside the parenthesis {x(blahblah)} ?
So wouldn't 2(3~02468) = 6?
Or something like that? Maybe?

I'm not sure. I started doubting myself halfway through that myself. Oh well.
Anyways, this is neat but I don't really see how this would get used. Sorry.
Now I have to go read the rest before I burn my retinas.

3~02468 means you start from the first digit, and count over 3. 0 is one, 2 is two, 4 is three over. So the answer is 4. 2(3~02468) means you START at the 2, then count over 3, in the string 02468. So what would that be? 8. See, no problem here!

KryptykProductions wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

KryptykProductions wrote:

Okay, I found this from your project and I haven't really read it all way but…
I read the first part and caught a *potential* error. I may be completely wrong but don't judge because my eyes are hurting from staring at my monitor all day.

Here goes:
When explaining the first input (starting locale) you say that the 3~02468 = 4. That would mean we'd be counting the first digit as 1 and so on, right?
Well, later you say that 2(3~02468) is 8, and that we started from 2 instead of 0.
Except we DIDN'T start from 0. We started BEFORE 0. Which is why 0 was our 1st digit, yes?
So on those grounds, shouldn't we start counting with our number outside the parenthesis {x(blahblah)} ?
So wouldn't 2(3~02468) = 6?
Or something like that? Maybe?

I'm not sure. I started doubting myself halfway through that myself. Oh well.
Anyways, this is neat but I don't really see how this would get used. Sorry.
Now I have to go read the rest before I burn my retinas.

3~02468 means you start from the first digit, and count over 3. 0 is one, 2 is two, 4 is three over. So the answer is 4. 2(3~02468) means you START at the 2, then count over 3, in the string 02468. So what would that be? 8. See, no problem here!

Okay, sounds good. If there is no thing here -> {x(2~02468)} it starts from the very beginning.
Got it!
Also, I have a question for you (having observed your coding epicness) that will help me on a game I'm making.
I will make a topic and send you a link soon.

Aboot4 wrote:

Thank you! And sure, I'll wait for it!

KryptykProductions wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

KryptykProductions wrote:

Okay, I found this from your project and I haven't really read it all way but…
I read the first part and caught a *potential* error. I may be completely wrong but don't judge because my eyes are hurting from staring at my monitor all day.

Here goes:
When explaining the first input (starting locale) you say that the 3~02468 = 4. That would mean we'd be counting the first digit as 1 and so on, right?
Well, later you say that 2(3~02468) is 8, and that we started from 2 instead of 0.
Except we DIDN'T start from 0. We started BEFORE 0. Which is why 0 was our 1st digit, yes?
So on those grounds, shouldn't we start counting with our number outside the parenthesis {x(blahblah)} ?
So wouldn't 2(3~02468) = 6?
Or something like that? Maybe?

I'm not sure. I started doubting myself halfway through that myself. Oh well.
Anyways, this is neat but I don't really see how this would get used. Sorry.
Now I have to go read the rest before I burn my retinas.

3~02468 means you start from the first digit, and count over 3. 0 is one, 2 is two, 4 is three over. So the answer is 4. 2(3~02468) means you START at the 2, then count over 3, in the string 02468. So what would that be? 8. See, no problem here!

Okay, sounds good. If there is no thing here -> {x(2~02468)} it starts from the very beginning.
Got it!
Also, I have a question for you (having observed your coding epicness) that will help me on a game I'm making.
I will make a topic and send you a link soon.

And correct. But setting that 1st digit to 1 is the same as not having it at all.

KryptykProductions wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

Thank you! And sure, I'll wait for it!

KryptykProductions wrote:

Aboot4 wrote:

KryptykProductions wrote:

Okay, I found this from your project and I haven't really read it all way but…
I read the first part and caught a *potential* error. I may be completely wrong but don't judge because my eyes are hurting from staring at my monitor all day.

Here goes:
When explaining the first input (starting locale) you say that the 3~02468 = 4. That would mean we'd be counting the first digit as 1 and so on, right?
Well, later you say that 2(3~02468) is 8, and that we started from 2 instead of 0.
Except we DIDN'T start from 0. We started BEFORE 0. Which is why 0 was our 1st digit, yes?
So on those grounds, shouldn't we start counting with our number outside the parenthesis {x(blahblah)} ?
So wouldn't 2(3~02468) = 6?
Or something like that? Maybe?

I'm not sure. I started doubting myself halfway through that myself. Oh well.
Anyways, this is neat but I don't really see how this would get used. Sorry.
Now I have to go read the rest before I burn my retinas.

3~02468 means you start from the first digit, and count over 3. 0 is one, 2 is two, 4 is three over. So the answer is 4. 2(3~02468) means you START at the 2, then count over 3, in the string 02468. So what would that be? 8. See, no problem here!

Okay, sounds good. If there is no thing here -> {x(2~02468)} it starts from the very beginning.
Got it!
Also, I have a question for you (having observed your coding epicness) that will help me on a game I'm making.
I will make a topic and send you a link soon.

And correct. But setting that 1st digit to 1 is the same as not having it at all.

Gotchya. Many major maths make mind melt. #alliteration