liam48D wrote:

I get this error when I try to drag a block:

function updatemouse() {
	mx = event.clientX; // <-- ReferenceError: event is not defined
	my = event.clientY;
}

It looks like in your HTML you have this code:

<div id="blocks" onmousemove="updatemouse()" >

Instead of using an inline event listener, you should use this JavaScript code:

// when the page is loaded...
document.getElementById("blocks").addEventListener("mousemove", updatemouse);

You should also change the updatemouse function:

function updatemouse(evt) { // Note this paramater
	mx = evt.clientX; // <-- is happy :)
	my = evt.clientY;
}

It looks pretty cool though!

ChildCritic wrote:

I'm trying to do the exact opposite. It looks great, though!
First AT post XD

ChildCritic wrote:

I'm trying to do the exact opposite. It looks great, though!
First AT post XD

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is really cool.
But on Firefox the inputs aren't working it's just transparent.

Btw, if you do not know how to wait (blocking) like for the "say [] for []" block, here's how you can do it:

var done = false;
setTimeout(100, function() { done = true });
while(!done);
// now go on

Remember that this will block the thread, so be sure not to do it in the main thread (or the page will hang!!)

kvackkvack wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is really cool.
But on Firefox the inputs aren't working it's just transparent.

Btw, if you do not know how to wait (blocking) like for the "say [] for []" block, here's how you can do it:

var done = false;
setTimeout(100, function() { done = true });
while(!done);
// now go on

Remember that this will block the thread, so be sure not to do it in the main thread (or the page will hang!!)

I thought JavaScript only could have one thread?
In either case, the best way is to treat the waiting blocks is as asynchronous, with a callback function for when you want to continue - just like how actual Scratch does it, IIRC.

setTimeout(0, function() {
  // new thread
});

Jonathan50 wrote:

kvackkvack wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is really cool.
But on Firefox the inputs aren't working it's just transparent.

Btw, if you do not know how to wait (blocking) like for the "say [] for []" block, here's how you can do it:

var done = false;
setTimeout(100, function() { done = true });
while(!done);
// now go on

Remember that this will block the thread, so be sure not to do it in the main thread (or the page will hang!!)

I thought JavaScript only could have one thread?
In either case, the best way is to treat the waiting blocks is as asynchronous, with a callback function for when you want to continue - just like how actual Scratch does it, IIRC.

…no?

setTimeout(0, function() {
  // new thread
});

Jonathan50 wrote:

kvackkvack wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is really cool.
But on Firefox the inputs aren't working it's just transparent.

Btw, if you do not know how to wait (blocking) like for the "say [] for []" block, here's how you can do it:

var done = false;
setTimeout(100, function() { done = true });
while(!done);
// now go on

Remember that this will block the thread, so be sure not to do it in the main thread (or the page will hang!!)

I thought JavaScript only could have one thread?
In either case, the best way is to treat the waiting blocks is as asynchronous, with a callback function for when you want to continue - just like how actual Scratch does it, IIRC.

…no?

setTimeout(0, function() {
  // new thread
});

kvackkvack wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is really cool.
But on Firefox the inputs aren't working it's just transparent.

Btw, if you do not know how to wait (blocking) like for the "say [] for []" block, here's how you can do it:

var done = false;
setTimeout(100, function() { done = true });
while(!done);
// now go on

Remember that this will block the thread, so be sure not to do it in the main thread (or the page will hang!!)

I thought JavaScript only could have one thread?
In either case, the best way is to treat the waiting blocks is as asynchronous, with a callback function for when you want to continue - just like how actual Scratch does it, IIRC.

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is really cool.
But on Firefox the inputs aren't working it's just transparent.

hiccup01 wrote:

I can do some css for the editor as I am relatively good at it…

MathWizz wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

kvackkvack wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is really cool.
But on Firefox the inputs aren't working it's just transparent.

Btw, if you do not know how to wait (blocking) like for the "say [] for []" block, here's how you can do it:

var done = false;
setTimeout(100, function() { done = true });
while(!done);
// now go on

Remember that this will block the thread, so be sure not to do it in the main thread (or the page will hang!!)

I thought JavaScript only could have one thread?
In either case, the best way is to treat the waiting blocks is as asynchronous, with a callback function for when you want to continue - just like how actual Scratch does it, IIRC.

…no?

setTimeout(0, function() {
  // new thread
});

JavaScript is indeed single threaded. That code would only start the “new thread” when the current script yields.

Jonathan50 wrote:

MathWizz wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

kvackkvack wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is really cool.
But on Firefox the inputs aren't working it's just transparent.

Btw, if you do not know how to wait (blocking) like for the "say [] for []" block, here's how you can do it:

var done = false;
setTimeout(100, function() { done = true });
while(!done);
// now go on

Remember that this will block the thread, so be sure not to do it in the main thread (or the page will hang!!)

I thought JavaScript only could have one thread?
In either case, the best way is to treat the waiting blocks is as asynchronous, with a callback function for when you want to continue - just like how actual Scratch does it, IIRC.

…no?

setTimeout(0, function() {
  // new thread
});

JavaScript is indeed single threaded. That code would only start the “new thread” when the current script yields.

…no.
Why do you think that?