I want a block that can stop it's parent script, like this:

stop [parent script v] :: stack

How it works:

It would mostly be used for functions, and would stop the parent script. If I had this, perhaps:

define func
...
stop [parent script v] :: stack

when gf clicked
forever
func :: custom stack
change [var v] by (1)
end

Var would never get changed, because the function stop whatever started it, in this case, the green flag block script. And since the function was ran before the var change, the var never got changed. It should work with broadcasts, too. And any hat block. If something does not have a parent block, it would not do anything.

FAQs

If I had nested custom blocks, how many levels does it go?

Remember, I only goes up one level!

Can't you use variables?

Well, that would work for broadcasts, but it would not work for functions. The next block is not ran until the function is finished.

If you have nested custom blocks, would it stop one level up or all the way to the top?

(edit - didn't read OP)

Hmm, I support, but shouldn't it be a cap block like this

stop [parent script v] :: control cap

?

Would this work?

define custom
set [stop after v] to [false]
...
set [stop after v] to [true]

and use the block like:

custom :: custom
if < (stop after) = [true] > then
stop [this script v] 

Now I can stop my parents from grounding me!

walkcycle wrote:

Would this work?

define custom
set [stop after v] to [false]
...
set [stop after v] to [true]

and use the block like:

custom :: custom
if < (stop after) = [true] > then
stop [this script v] 

Yeah, that would work.

PrincessPandaLover wrote:

Now I can stop my parents from grounding me!

walkcycle wrote:

Would this work?

define custom
set [stop after v] to [false]
...
set [stop after v] to [true]

and use the block like:

custom :: custom
if < (stop after) = [true] > then
stop [this script v] 

Yeah, that would work.

no, it would not work because the next block will not be ran until the function is finished

Scratcher1002 wrote:

Hmm, I support, but shouldn't it be a cap block like this

stop [parent script v] :: control cap

?

no, because it doesn't stop it's own script, just it's parents

scratch0maker0 wrote:

PrincessPandaLover wrote:

Now I can stop my parents from grounding me!

walkcycle wrote:

Would this work?

define custom
set [stop after v] to [false]
...
set [stop after v] to [true]

and use the block like:

custom :: custom
if < (stop after) = [true] > then
stop [this script v] 

Yeah, that would work.

no, it would not work because the next block will not be ran until the function is finished

If you added the variable block underneath that if statement, it won't be run…

PrincessPandaLover wrote:

Now I can stop my parents from grounding me!.

LoL!

scratch0maker0 wrote:

no, it would not work because the next block will not be ran until the function is finished

How about

define custom
set [stop after v] to [false]
...
set [stop after v] to [true]
stop [this script v] 

and use the block like:

custom :: custom
if < (stop after) = [true] > then
stop [this script v] 

XenoCoding wrote:

scratch0maker0 wrote:

PrincessPandaLover wrote:

Now I can stop my parents from grounding me!

walkcycle wrote:

Would this work?

define custom
set [stop after v] to [false]
...
set [stop after v] to [true]

and use the block like:

custom :: custom
if < (stop after) = [true] > then
stop [this script v] 

Yeah, that would work.

no, it would not work because the next block will not be ran until the function is finished

If you added the variable block underneath that if statement, it won't be run…

walkcycle wrote:

PrincessPandaLover wrote:

Now I can stop my parents from grounding me!.

LoL!

scratch0maker0 wrote:

no, it would not work because the next block will not be ran until the function is finished

How about

define custom
set [stop after v] to [false]
...
set [stop after v] to [true]
stop [this script v] 

and use the block like:

custom :: custom
if < (stop after) = [true] > then
stop [this script v] 

If the block isn't a cap block, why should we put a stop this script block under it? And the advantage would be that it can stop the parent block at any time, not just a the end. YOu would have to do that every function, it's workaround is tedious and slow.

scratch0maker0 wrote:

If the block isn't a cap block, why should we put a stop this script block under it? And the advantage would be that it can stop the parent block at any time, not just a the end. YOu would have to do that every function, it's workaround is tedious and slow.

If the workaround doesn't occur very often, then it doesn't matter if it's tedious or slow. I've never occurred a situation where I would need this block, so I'm sure that there are very few situations where you would. And for those very few situations, a simple and easy workaround has been provided. I don't think that a new block is necessary in this case.

scratch0maker0 wrote:

Scratcher1002 wrote:

Hmm, I support, but shouldn't it be a cap block like this

stop [parent script v] :: control cap

?

no, because it doesn't stop it's own script, just it's parents

Exactly, if it stops it's parent script that means that it can't run anymore. It's like that grandfather paradox.