childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

So you want to be able to make this?

<(costume #) = <<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>>

No support because it's not possible - what would the value of

<<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>

be? (it can only be true or false, because it's a boolean)

The value is simutaneously 1 and 2. the value can be 1 or 2 and it still be true. I agree, that the block would make things easier

<<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators>or<[4]::operators>>>

above shows that the value is simultaneously 1, 2, and 4 all at the same time.

Oh, I just caught that it's a boolean script. Perhaps we should make a

<() or ()>

Block to solve that problem

That still wouldn't work because the value of a reporter can't simultaneously be two different things.

It would still work, because the knowledge in question is either 1 or 2 would work.

when green flag clicked
forever
    
if <(some random varible) = [<<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>]> then
do some random stuff

end

end

It wouldn't work. A reporter can only return one value, and its value can't change depending on context.

The only way it would work is if they added a whole new type of reporter for lists. But even then, the check would look something like this:

<([1] [2] ◄► :: list) contains (costume #)>

childgamer wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

So you want to be able to make this?

<(costume #) = <<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>>

No support because it's not possible - what would the value of

<<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>

be? (it can only be true or false, because it's a boolean)

The value is simutaneously 1 and 2. the value can be 1 or 2 and it still be true. I agree, that the block would make things easier

<<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators>or<[4]::operators>>>

above shows that the value is simultaneously 1, 2, and 4 all at the same time.

Oh, I just caught that it's a boolean script. Perhaps we should make a

<() or ()>

Block to solve that problem

That still wouldn't work because the value of a reporter can't simultaneously be two different things.

It would still work, because the knowledge in question is either 1 or 2 would work.

when green flag clicked
forever
    
if <(some random varible) = [<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators> >> ]> then
do some random stuff
end
end

What happens if you try to do this?

say <(1) or (2)>

the sprite has a choice of 1 or 2 to say. Here, I'd say that you are just as well off with

say (pick random (1) to (2))

I feel like this block's function is a bit ambiguous then! Still no support!

Sure, it's not best for everything, but it's a lot simpler this:

 ((variable) = ([1] or [2]::operators))

than this:

<<(variable) = [1]> or <(variable) = [2]>>

That's what I was going for!

No support, too complex.

No support. If I understand correctly, the proposed block converts a string to a boolean, so it can be put into an if-statement. This would be the only type-conversion block in Scratch, because Scratch automatically converts data types! It would be much easier to simply allow boolean slots to take strings.

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

So you want to be able to make this?

<(costume #) = <<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>>

No support because it's not possible - what would the value of

<<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>

be? (it can only be true or false, because it's a boolean)

The value is simutaneously 1 and 2. the value can be 1 or 2 and it still be true. I agree, that the block would make things easier

<<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators>or<[4]::operators>>>

above shows that the value is simultaneously 1, 2, and 4 all at the same time.

Oh, I just caught that it's a boolean script. Perhaps we should make a

<() or ()>

Block to solve that problem

That still wouldn't work because the value of a reporter can't simultaneously be two different things.

It would still work, because the knowledge in question is either 1 or 2 would work.

when green flag clicked
forever
    
if <(some random varible) = [<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators> >> ]> then
do some random stuff
end
end

What happens if you try to do this?

say <(1) or (2)>

the sprite has a choice of 1 or 2 to say. Here, I'd say that you are just as well off with

say (pick random (1) to (2))

I feel like this block's function is a bit ambiguous then! Still no support!

what if you wanted

say <(1) or (3)>

*I don't think this is a necropost. I'm bringing a new point to the discussion.*
Just cause:
*I was curious to see what 3sal2's 250th post was,and it came to this, where I always wanted to come back on.*
*skipping 2 accounts in this discussion*

No support, it doesn't seem very useful

ChildCritic wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

So you want to be able to make this?

<(costume #) = <<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>>

No support because it's not possible - what would the value of

<<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>

be? (it can only be true or false, because it's a boolean)

The value is simutaneously 1 and 2. the value can be 1 or 2 and it still be true. I agree, that the block would make things easier

<<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators>or<[4]::operators>>>

above shows that the value is simultaneously 1, 2, and 4 all at the same time.

Oh, I just caught that it's a boolean script. Perhaps we should make a

<() or ()>

Block to solve that problem

That still wouldn't work because the value of a reporter can't simultaneously be two different things.

It would still work, because the knowledge in question is either 1 or 2 would work.

when green flag clicked
forever
    
if <(some random varible) = [<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators> >> ]> then
do some random stuff
end
end

What happens if you try to do this?

say <(1) or (2)>

the sprite has a choice of 1 or 2 to say. Here, I'd say that you are just as well off with

say (pick random (1) to (2))

I feel like this block's function is a bit ambiguous then! Still no support!

what if you wanted

say <(1) or (3)>

*I don't think this is a necropost. I'm bringing a new point to the discussion.*
Just cause:
*I was curious to see what 3sal2's 250th post was,and it came to this, where I always wanted to come back on.*
*skipping 2 accounts in this discussion*

I don't know what your point is. Can you explain some more?

Iditaroid wrote:

ChildCritic wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

So you want to be able to make this?

<(costume #) = <<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>>

No support because it's not possible - what would the value of

<<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>

be? (it can only be true or false, because it's a boolean)

The value is simutaneously 1 and 2. the value can be 1 or 2 and it still be true. I agree, that the block would make things easier

<<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators>or<[4]::operators>>>

above shows that the value is simultaneously 1, 2, and 4 all at the same time.

Oh, I just caught that it's a boolean script. Perhaps we should make a

<() or ()>

Block to solve that problem

That still wouldn't work because the value of a reporter can't simultaneously be two different things.

It would still work, because the knowledge in question is either 1 or 2 would work.

when green flag clicked
forever
    
if <(some random varible) = [<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators> >> ]> then
do some random stuff
end
end

What happens if you try to do this?

say <(1) or (2)>

the sprite has a choice of 1 or 2 to say. Here, I'd say that you are just as well off with

say (pick random (1) to (2))

I feel like this block's function is a bit ambiguous then! Still no support!

what if you wanted

say <(1) or (3)>

*I don't think this is a necropost. I'm bringing a new point to the discussion.*
Just cause:
*I was curious to see what 3sal2's 250th post was,and it came to this, where I always wanted to come back on.*
*skipping 2 accounts in this discussion*

I don't know what your point is. Can you explain some more?

my point is, this block would make many things easier. I know of the workarounds, and that it's simple, but it is also used a lot. Read the rest of the chain.

ChildCritic wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

ChildCritic wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

Iditaroid wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

childgamer wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

So you want to be able to make this?

<(costume #) = <<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>>

No support because it's not possible - what would the value of

<<[1]::operators> or <[2]::operators>>

be? (it can only be true or false, because it's a boolean)

The value is simutaneously 1 and 2. the value can be 1 or 2 and it still be true. I agree, that the block would make things easier

<<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators>or<[4]::operators>>>

above shows that the value is simultaneously 1, 2, and 4 all at the same time.

Oh, I just caught that it's a boolean script. Perhaps we should make a

<() or ()>

Block to solve that problem

That still wouldn't work because the value of a reporter can't simultaneously be two different things.

It would still work, because the knowledge in question is either 1 or 2 would work.

when green flag clicked
forever
    
if <(some random varible) = [<<[1]::operators> or <<[2]::operators> >> ]> then
do some random stuff
end
end

What happens if you try to do this?

say <(1) or (2)>

the sprite has a choice of 1 or 2 to say. Here, I'd say that you are just as well off with

say (pick random (1) to (2))

I feel like this block's function is a bit ambiguous then! Still no support!

what if you wanted

say <(1) or (3)>

*I don't think this is a necropost. I'm bringing a new point to the discussion.*
Just cause:
*I was curious to see what 3sal2's 250th post was,and it came to this, where I always wanted to come back on.*
*skipping 2 accounts in this discussion*

I don't know what your point is. Can you explain some more?

my point is, this block would make many things easier. I know of the workarounds, and that it's simple, but it is also used a lot. Read the rest of the chain.

I wrote part of this chain! This block does different things in different situations, which complicates things unnecessarily and doesn't make any sense, and Stickfiregames's point that reporters should only give out a single value stands as well.

The block doesn't make sense, the way you used it.. and no support, easy workarounds.

No ,suport

Can someone explain what this does? For now, no support because if I'm confused, New Scratchers would too.

I see what you mean and I can see it being useful but it would break the fundamentals of programming, so no support.

I see what you want to achieve

Is this what you are looking for?

<(costume #) equals any of  (myVar) [3] [] (-::operators)(+::operators) ::operators>

———-

A value that equals more than one other value is a very interesting concept,
and i already used it in C++ (it's called bit-flgs there, and is even more flexible and complex)
However, for scratch, it would be too complicated. So no support for the original post.

Scratch on

I think this is getting a little off-topic

miniepicness wrote:

I think this is getting a little off-topic

Oops, accidentally necroposted, sorry, also, I think you can already type in those boxes like:

<<Example> or <Example >>

So, i dont think this would be needed.

Apologies for not reading all the posts
Coding is not literal English; the if block won't be checking if the costume number is 1 or 2, even with this block. It always be false, no matter what, in this scenario.

What would the block report? There's no condition.

Support, there are many times where I had to write extra code because that wasn't a block.

usefun wrote:

Support, there are many times where I had to write extra code because that wasn't a block.

easy workaround bro