ChildCritic wrote:

support.
Also you had 6 supporters listed before me.

Thanks

Scratcher1002 wrote:

I support, not a reason for it not to be a thing, however workaround:

Broadcast (join [name] [condition])

I disagree - what if I needed to do this?

broadcast (join (mouse x) [message])

I would need over 480 scripts - when I receive -240message, when I receive -239message, etc…

I like the idea of having a broadcast-with-argument block, but I can't think of a way to do it elegantly. You can use variables, I guess, but that's even more janky (it takes like 5 blocks to set everything up before you can broadcast)

scratchisthebest wrote:

Scratcher1002 wrote:

I support, not a reason for it not to be a thing, however workaround:

Broadcast (join [name] [condition])

I disagree - what if I needed to do this?

broadcast (join (mouse x) [message])

I would need over 480 scripts - when I receive -240message, when I receive -239message, etc…

I like the idea of having a broadcast-with-argument block, but I can't think of a way to do it elegantly. You can use variables, I guess, but that's even more janky (it takes like 5 blocks to set everything up before you can broadcast)

And especially if you want to pass 10 arguments!
Also, do you support?

Here are the ASCII codes of what I want to say:
66 117 109 112
(Bump)

Support!

Maybe in other sprites than the one defines, they could be prefixed with the sprite name, for example if “Sprite1” had

define do stuff (a) (b) (c)

and this option was checked, other sprites would do (and see in their more blocks pallet)

Sprite1: do stuff (a) (b) (c) :: custom

to call it.

joefarebrother wrote:

Support!

Maybe in other sprites than the one defines, they could be prefixed with the sprite name, for example if “Sprite1” had

define do stuff (a) (b) (c)

and this option was checked, other sprites would do (and see in their more blocks pallet)

Sprite1: do stuff (a) (b) (c) :: custom

to call it.

Good Idea!

This is a bump.
This is some ascii art:
——-
- @@ -
- | -
- ~ -
-
——^——-
| |
| B |
| U |
| M |
| P |
| |
– – –
| | |
| | |
| | |
(_____(____|

Bumpity Bump Bump - Ouch, my head! xD (the person bumped their head, and it's funny because they are not real. This is interesting - as soon as the pai of the person i just in our heads, we laugh at the concept of our piers (jks))

On a side note:

Nobody seems to be responding to my bumps. Thus I am worried that my suggestion is dying. I don't want to clog up recently opened topics, so this will be the only bump of the week, unless somebody other than me posts within that timeframe.

jokebookservice1 wrote:

Bumpity Bump Bump - Ouch, my head! xD (the person bumped their head, and it's funny because they are not real. This is interesting - as soon as the pai of the person i just in our heads, we laugh at the concept of our piers (jks))

On a side note:

Nobody seems to be responding to my bumps. Thus I am worried that my suggestion is dying. I don't want to clog up recently opened topics, so this will be the only bump of the week, unless somebody other than me posts within that timeframe.

The rule that I use for bumping my threads is that I never bump a topic if the last post on the topic was my post, and it was purposely a bump. You may not choose to use that rule, but I figured I'd put that out there.

DaSpudLord wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

Bumpity Bump Bump - Ouch, my head! xD (the person bumped their head, and it's funny because they are not real. This is interesting - as soon as the pai of the person i just in our heads, we laugh at the concept of our piers (jks))

On a side note:

Nobody seems to be responding to my bumps. Thus I am worried that my suggestion is dying. I don't want to clog up recently opened topics, so this will be the only bump of the week, unless somebody other than me posts within that timeframe.

The rule that I use for bumping my threads is that I never bump a topic if the last post on the topic was my post, and it was purposely a bump. You may not choose to use that rule, but I figured I'd put that out there.

Thanks, I think that's a good rule, and I'll try to stick to that.

Ok, so I'm going to make a crossword wordsearch. Can you find the word?

A B C
V U W
L M N
O P Q

(The word is BUMP)

Please reply to this, somebody….

jokebookservice1 wrote:

Ok, so I'm going to make a crossword. Can you find the word?

A B C
V U W
L M N
O P Q

(The word is BUMP)

Please reply to this, somebody….

Join the club of people who mix up crosswords and word finds, friend… We're really a sad bunch. I do it all the time. It's like a hobby.

Anyhow… Support merely for the reason that the checkbox would probably right under “run without screen refresh,” which is confusing on its own… so this wouldn't be much MORE confusing for users.

Support!

scratchisthebest wrote:

Scratcher1002 wrote:

I support, not a reason for it not to be a thing, however workaround:

Broadcast (join [name] [condition])

I disagree - what if I needed to do this?

broadcast (join (mouse x) [message])

I would need over 480 scripts - when I receive -240message, when I receive -239message, etc…

I like the idea of having a broadcast-with-argument block, but I can't think of a way to do it elegantly. You can use variables, I guess, but that's even more janky (it takes like 5 blocks to set everything up before you can broadcast)

I never said it was a good workaround.

Support

Sigton

A B
Q R S T U
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
(bump)

support.

lololbump

Please express your opinions