define add (x) (y)
replace item (1) of [return v] with ((x) + (y))

(pick random (1) to (item ((add (1) (1)::stack) + (1)) of [return  v]))

Jonathan50 wrote:

Well, it should be… I think I tried that before and it worked then reported “NULL” or something.

bobbybee wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Well, it should be… I think I tried that before and it worked then reported “NULL” or something.

Alright. Then name the list “NULL” and use the reporter value as the return register list name

Could be cute if not useful?

adespotist wrote:

bobbybee wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Well, it should be… I think I tried that before and it worked then reported “NULL” or something.

Alright. Then name the list “NULL” and use the reporter value as the return register list name

Could be cute if not useful?

Right now I'm working on something else, but does it work? I could use it for my eventual Snap!-to-Scratch transpiler.

liam48D wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/108953360/

EDIT: for anybody who's on a mobile device, see the script and the output.

EDIT2: for Gingerline 2.0 or any other backwards-compatible mod, is this true?


(scratchblocks)

bobbybee wrote:

liam48D wrote:

https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/108953360/

EDIT: for anybody who's on a mobile device, see the script and the output.

EDIT2: for Gingerline 2.0 or any other backwards-compatible mod, is this true?


(scratchblocks)

Wait, so I invented custom reporters? Cool!

liam48D wrote:

..yep

bobbybee wrote:

liam48D wrote:

..yep

So, think I should not do Chimera and just go with this instead for Scratch Day? ^_^

PullJosh wrote:

That's actually really clever!

(join(item [last v] of {my block::custom}){delete [last v] of [null v]})

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

PullJosh wrote:

That's actually really clever!

^

Very late edit: I just realized the potential this has for tremendous abuse. For example, you could make (faster?) if-elses by abusing short circuiting of the and/or blocks. Or automatic stack handling with something like

(join(item [last v] of {my block::custom}){delete [last v] of [null v]})

bobbybee wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

PullJosh wrote:

That's actually really clever!

^

Very late edit: I just realized the potential this has for tremendous abuse. For example, you could make (faster?) if-elses by abusing short circuiting of the and/or blocks. Or automatic stack handling with something like

(join(item [last v] of {my block::custom}){delete [last v] of [null v]})

That's beautiful.

(join (letter (0) of ({custom reporter :: custom} + (1))) (item ({custom reporter :: custom} + (1)) of [return v]))

-Io- wrote:

It doesn't work as you may expect

It actually gets the value returned from the block (null) and then it runs the block
You can see in liam's project the say block actually says the last value instead of the current one.

btw i tested with

(join (letter (0) of ({custom reporter :: custom} + (1))) (item ({custom reporter :: custom} + (1)) of [return v]))

to see if reporters run each block one by one. I expected to run the first block (the functional one), then run the second block (the non-functional one) to get the value returned from the first one, but no it didn't work

-Io- wrote:

It doesn't work as you may expect

It actually gets the value returned from the block (null) and then it runs the block
You can see in liam's project the say block actually says the last value instead of the current one.

btw i tested with

(join (letter (0) of ({custom reporter :: custom} + (1))) (item ({custom reporter :: custom} + (1)) of [return v]))

to see if reporters run each block one by one. I expected to run the first block (the functional one), then run the second block (the non-functional one) to get the value returned from the first one, but no it didn't work