ChocolatePi wrote:

I think this would fit better in the operators category, as the blocks like (letter (n) of (str)) are there too.

BowWhalley wrote:

ChocolatePi wrote:

I think this would fit better in the operators category, as the blocks like (letter (n) of (str)) are there too.

though operators is more math than answer. This would just give a true or false response.

BowWhalley wrote:

ChocolatePi wrote:

I think this would fit better in the operators category, as the blocks like (letter (n) of (str)) are there too.

though operators is more math than answer. This would just give a true or false response.

<[] = []>

DaSpudLord wrote:

BowWhalley wrote:

ChocolatePi wrote:

I think this would fit better in the operators category, as the blocks like (letter (n) of (str)) are there too.

though operators is more math than answer. This would just give a true or false response.

Operators is for handling strings, too. Sensing is for detecting stuff about what is going on in the screen (like the touching color block), detecting other sprites (distance to sprite), and getting data from the outside world (mouse position, key pressed, webcam, date and time, etc). Operators is for handling, transforming, and analyzing any type of data, including strings. One example of this is-

<[] = []>

This is used for sensing both numbers and strings (as indicated by the rectangular textboxes). So I feel like if this block was implemented, it would go in operators.

Anyway, semi-support because the workaround is a good one to know, as the knowledge gained from knowing it is useful for creating lots of other blocks.

BowWhalley wrote:

At the moment, the most effecient way to check if a string contains another string is quite complicated. http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Checking_if_a_String_Contains_a_String

I would like there to be a block in Sensing, that does this automatically for us .

<string [goalie] contains string [goal]::operators>//returns true
//or
<string [keeper] contains string [goal]::operators>//returns false

[scratchblocks]
<string [goalie] contains string [goal]::operators>
<string [keeper] contains string [goal]::operators>
[/scratchblocks]

define [string] contains [substring]?
set [counter v] to [1]
set [counter2 v] to [1]
set [parse v] to []
repeat until <<(parse) = (substring)> or <(counter) > (length of (string))>>
  if <(letter (counter) of (string)) = (letter (counter 2) of (substring))>
    set [parse v] to (join (parse)(letter (counter) of (string)))
    change [counter 2 v] by (1)
  else
    set [parse v] to []
    set [counter 2 v] to [1]
  end
  change [counter v] by (1)
end
if <(parse) = (substring)>
  set [contains? v] to [true]
else
  set [contains? v] to [false]
end

ChildCritic wrote:

So you mean like

<string [goalie] contains string [goal]::operators>//returns true
//or
<string [keeper] contains string [goal]::operators>//returns false

support.
I don't watch or play soccer. I had no intent for this example.

here is the code for the above blocks.

[scratchblocks]
<string [goalie] contains string [goal]::operators>
<string [keeper] contains string [goal]::operators>
[/scratchblocks]

gamebeater187 wrote:

Duplicate
Workaround:

define [string] contains [substring]?
set [counter v] to [1]
set [counter2 v] to [1]
set [parse v] to []
repeat until <<(parse) = (substring)> or <(counter) > (length of (string))>>
  if <(letter (counter) of (string)) = (letter (counter 2) of (substring))>
    set [parse v] to (join (parse)(letter (counter) of (string)))
    change [counter 2 v] by (1)
  else
    set [parse v] to []
    set [counter 2 v] to [1]
  end
  change [counter v] by (1)
end
if <(parse) = (substring)>
  set [contains? v] to [true]
else
  set [contains? v] to [false]
end

<string [goalie] contains string [goal]::operators>  //true
//or
<string [keeper] contains string [goal]::operators> //false

DatOneLefty wrote:

support. this could be used for safe chats

stickfiregames wrote:

Support.

The reason I don't think the workaround is a good excuse for not adding it is because it uses a lot of looping, which is slower than having a single block especially when you are working with long strings.

DatOneLefty wrote:

support. this could be used for safe chats

liam48D wrote:

DatOneLefty wrote:

support. this could be used for safe chats

Not really. I can only see this being used in a safe chat as a black list which isn't allowed.

repeat (length of [whitelist v])
if <string (answer) contains (item (a) of [whitelist v])? :: operators
add (answer) to [Cloud List v]
end
change [a v] by (1)
end

Scratcher1002 wrote:

liam48D wrote:

DatOneLefty wrote:

support. this could be used for safe chats

Not really. I can only see this being used in a safe chat as a black list which isn't allowed.

Or whitelist.

repeat (length of [whitelist v])
if <string (answer) contains (item (a) of [whitelist v])? :: operators
add (answer) to [Cloud List v]
end
change [a v] by (1)
end

<[whitelist v] contains (answer)>