Could we please have an exponents block? ( ) ^ ( )

walkcycle

Blaze349 wrote:
There isn't an easy workaround….

Sure there is. They are posted in this thread and in the earlier threads linked from this thread.

Blaze349 wrote:
There could potentially be one if we had reporter functions but we don't.

3.0, fingers crossed.

Trump-Russia Timeline

Meditation with Biscuit | SOFAANISQATSI | Lost Satellite Found | Riddles in the sky

cul8er

Blaze349 wrote:
cul8er wrote:
78ch3 wrote:
Please don't post workabouts. I have had enough of them. It is better not to have the workabout because it merges the workabout into a smaller block, making there be more space for scripts.
But if there is a easy workaround, it's not worth the effort for the ST to put in a new block if there's no other reason for it to be included.
There isn't an easy workaround….There could potentially be one if we had reporter functions but we don't.
-snip-

But if there was, hypothetically, an easy workaround for a block with no redeeming features, then the block would be pointless and wouldn't be added.
Like

switch backdrop to [previous v]

Gone.

Sheep_maker

Even if it has a workaround, that doesn't mean it should never be implemented; it just means the ST should prioritise other suggestions above the workaroundable ones

Also, this is still a duplicate.

- Sheep_maker This is a kumquat-free signature. :P
This is my signature. It appears below all my posts. Discuss it on my profile, not the forums. Here's how to make your own.
.postsignature { overflow: auto; } .scratchblocks { overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: hidden; }

Charles12310

Sheep_maker wrote:
Even if it has a workaround, that doesn't mean it should never be implemented; it just means the ST should prioritise other suggestions above the workaroundable ones

Also, this is still a duplicate.

Yeah, read sixth suggestion: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/215499/

A few internet communication companies want to corrupt the internet by getting rid of net neutrality. Stop Them!

DownsGameClub

Is there a function in other programming languages that calculates exponents? I have a feeling the ^ symbol may cause a bit of confusion if there is a different function input, as already with the == (which is pretty easy to memorize though)…

Last edited by DownsGameClub (July 17, 2017 06:20:54)

–DGC
Scratcher since Aug. 2015 +++ Fire Alarm Enthusiast +++ College student studying fire protection engineering

MClovers

I think there could be a workaround for that.
Just too lazy to make one

President of Scratch ShopBux

kenny2scratch

78ch3 wrote:
Please don't post workabouts.

Refusing to look at workarounds is not acceptable. If there is a good and reliable workaround to the block, then use the workaround instead of suggesting the block.

78ch3 wrote:
It is better not to have the workabout because it merges the workabout into a smaller block, making there be more space for scripts.

In this particular case, there were two tiny workarounds that worked absolutely fine:

Charles12310 wrote:

([10^ v] of ((power) * ([log v] of (base))) :: operators )
([e^ v] of ((power) * ([ln v] of (base))) :: operators )

They're small enough that they take almost no extra script space.

Honestly, refusing workarounds is not going to get you any support. If there's a workaround, use it! New blocks are exceedingly rare (although a bunch are being added in 3.0) and most suggestions don't come through.

post brought to you by the preview links bug and previously the uploads site bug. 看一下中文 Scratch 維基！想參加？請參考這頁。

Join the Scratch Wiki!
Made by Scratchers, for Scratchers, since December 6, 2008

Blaze349

DownsGameClub wrote:
Is there a function in other programming languages that calculates exponents? I have a feeling the ^ symbol may cause a bit of confusion if there is a different function input, as already with the == (which is pretty easy to memorize though)…

Most of the languages that I have used, have this function in their math library.

Visit Christian HQ.

kenny2scratch

DownsGameClub wrote:
Is there a function in other programming languages that calculates exponents? I have a feeling the ^ symbol may cause a bit of confusion if there is a different function input, as already with the == (which is pretty easy to memorize though)…

In Python it's ** instead of ^… is that what you wanted?~~~~

post brought to you by the preview links bug and previously the uploads site bug. 看一下中文 Scratch 維基！想參加？請參考這頁。

Join the Scratch Wiki!
Made by Scratchers, for Scratchers, since December 6, 2008

DownsGameClub

kenny2scratch wrote:
DownsGameClub wrote:
Is there a function in other programming languages that calculates exponents? I have a feeling the ^ symbol may cause a bit of confusion if there is a different function input, as already with the == (which is pretty easy to memorize though)…
In Python it's ** instead of ^… is that what you wanted?~~~~

Blaze349 wrote:
DownsGameClub wrote:
Is there a function in other programming languages that calculates exponents? I have a feeling the ^ symbol may cause a bit of confusion if there is a different function input, as already with the == (which is pretty easy to memorize though)…
Most of the languages that I have used, have this function in their math library.

Yeah… @kenny2scratch what does ^ do in Python then?

–DGC
Scratcher since Aug. 2015 +++ Fire Alarm Enthusiast +++ College student studying fire protection engineering

cul8er

DownsGameClub wrote:
kenny2scratch wrote:
DownsGameClub wrote:
Is there a function in other programming languages that calculates exponents? I have a feeling the ^ symbol may cause a bit of confusion if there is a different function input, as already with the == (which is pretty easy to memorize though)…
In Python it's ** instead of ^… is that what you wanted?~~~~
Blaze349 wrote:
DownsGameClub wrote:
Is there a function in other programming languages that calculates exponents? I have a feeling the ^ symbol may cause a bit of confusion if there is a different function input, as already with the == (which is pretty easy to memorize though)…
Most of the languages that I have used, have this function in their math library.
Yeah… @kenny2scratch what does ^ do in Python then?

Google says ‘bitwise xor’ whatever that means.

Gone.

Blaze349

Just because it has a workaround doesn't mean it shouldn't be a feature. That workaround applies to other languages but they still have it.

These are workaroundable (is that a word):

repeat ()

end
go to x: () y: (0)
glide () secs to x: (0) y: (0)
if on edge, bounce
next costume
next backdrop
change [ v] effect by (25)
(pick random (((() mod (0)) / (0)) * (0)) to (10))
change [<[ v] contains [thing] ?> v] by (0)

I put all the operators together.

Last edited by Blaze349 (July 17, 2017 07:09:52)

Visit Christian HQ.

cul8er

Blaze349 wrote:
Just because it has a workaround doesn't mean it shouldn't be a feature.

But if the block has a relatively easy workaround, with no other good reason why it should be included other than the slight ease of use provided by the condensation, then it is not worth the effort to include it. This proposed block satisfies both of these conditions.

Gone.

Blaze349

cul8er wrote:
Blaze349 wrote:
Just because it has a workaround doesn't mean it shouldn't be a feature.
But if the block has a relatively easy workaround, with no other good reason why it should be included other than the slight ease of use provided by the condensation, then it is not worth the effort to include it. This proposed block satisfies both of these conditions.

Did you miss part two?

All these blocks can be easily (and some not so easily) worked around

Blaze349 wrote:

repeat ()

end
go to x: () y: (0)
glide () secs to x: (0) y: (0)
if on edge, bounce
next costume
next backdrop
change [ v] effect by (25)
(pick random (((() mod (0)) / (0)) * (0)) to (10))
change [<[ v] contains [thing] ?> v] by (0)

The most obvious of this is change variable. That is literally:

set [foo v] to ((foo) + (5))

Visit Christian HQ.

cul8er

Blaze349 wrote:
cul8er wrote:
Blaze349 wrote:
Just because it has a workaround doesn't mean it shouldn't be a feature.
But if the block has a relatively easy workaround, with no other good reason why it should be included other than the slight ease of use provided by the condensation, then it is not worth the effort to include it. This proposed block satisfies both of these conditions.
Did you miss part two?

All these blocks can be easily (and some not so easily) worked around
Blaze349 wrote:
repeat ()

end
go to x: () y: (0)
glide () secs to x: (0) y: (0)
if on edge, bounce
next costume
next backdrop
change [ v] effect by (25)
(pick random (((() mod (0)) / (0)) * (0)) to (10))
change [<[ v] contains [thing] ?> v] by (0)
The most obvious of this is change variable. That is literally:
set [foo v] to ((foo) + (5))

Yes, but there are good reasons for their inclusion.

Gone.

Blaze349

cul8er wrote:
Yes, but there are good reasons for their inclusion.

Like?

Oh

cul8er wrote:
the slight ease of use provided by the condensation

Last edited by Blaze349 (July 17, 2017 07:55:14)

Visit Christian HQ.

Blaze349

Bump 4 year old topic

Visit Christian HQ.

ConConScratch

8solarplanets wrote:
But what if we wanted to do x^50 or something? Why use 50 blocks when you could use 1?
EDIT: Support (though I started this post topic, so…)

IKR

define (delete account)
set [projects v] to [0]

add [Lists] to [forgotten tabs]

Why do we have to manually add pen and music tabs?

ConConScratch

Oh, and to come with it, could we get an nth root of x block?

define (delete account)
set [projects v] to [0]

add [Lists] to [forgotten tabs]

Why do we have to manually add pen and music tabs?

Sheep_maker

ConConScratch wrote:
Oh, and to come with it, could we get an nth root of x block?

((x::grey)^((1)/(n::grey))::operators)

- Sheep_maker This is a kumquat-free signature. :P
This is my signature. It appears below all my posts. Discuss it on my profile, not the forums. Here's how to make your own.
.postsignature { overflow: auto; } .scratchblocks { overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: hidden; }

Discuss Scratch