DaSpudLord wrote:

No support, workaroundable.

Also, there's a duplicate out there somewhere.

Znapi wrote:

Zro716 wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

…a split block does have a workaround.

split [hello world] by [ ] into [list v]
/* have to hack the custom block procDef and call blocks to be able ::grey
   to specify an available list without having to type it in every time */ ::grey
define split (string) by (splitter) into (list)
delete (all v) of (list) // have to hack the list blocks
set [split_substr v] to []
set [split_i v] to [0]
if <(splitter) = []> then // empty splitter means split by each letter
  repeat (length of (string))
    change [split_i v] by (1)
    add (letter (split_i) of (string)) to (list)
  end
else
  repeat (length of (string))
    change [split_i v] by (1)
    set [split_chr v] to (letter (split_i) of (string))
    if <(split_chr) = (splitter)> then
      add (split_substr) to (list)
      set [split_substr v] to []
    else
      set [split_substr v] to (join (split_substr)(split_chr))
   end
  end
  if <not <(split_substr) = []>> then // leave no substring unadded
    add (split_substr) to (list)
  end
end

you could also just do this:

define split (character) by (char)
set [repeat v] to [0]
repeat (length of (character))
if <(letter (repeat) of (character)) = (char)> then
add (text) to [final v]
set [text v] to []
end
set [text v] to (join (text) (letter (repeat) of (character))
end

split string [] into list [list v] :: list

define split (string) into list (list)
set [c v] to (0)
repeat (length of (string))
change [c v] by (1)
add (letter (c) of (string)) to (list)

-Rex- wrote:

How often do you need to do this? It's uncommon enough that it doesn't need a new block. And you can't justify a block because not all Scratchers know about the “variable loop method,” because if you could, there would already be hundreds of new blocks.

DaEpikDude wrote:

Personally I think it should work more like the split function in other programming languages (or at least Python):
Say you put in “This is a message”, you get the list .
i.e it splits the words, not the characters.

Charles12310 wrote:

1. Many users use the “variable loop method” in advanced projects in most cases of the usage.
2. I'm just saying not everybody knows it. It's not like I'm going to promote every block because their workaround has complicated stuff in it.

-Rex- wrote:

Charles12310 wrote:

1. Many users use the “variable loop method” in advanced projects in most cases of the usage.
2. I'm just saying not everybody knows it. It's not like I'm going to promote every block because their workaround has complicated stuff in it.

So what if not everyone knows the “variable loop method”? It's very common, very useful, and if a Scratcher wishes to be successful, they better learn how to use it. Anyway, if an inexperienced Scratcher needed to split a string, they would probably be able to find a workaround very quickly.

(join [] [] :: operators )

(length of [list v])

(length of [])

split [One, two, three] by [,] into [ v] :: list

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

A much better block is

split [One, two, three] by [,] into [ v] :: list

Because only implementing the easiest to workaround split would be really silly.

split [One, two, three] by [,] :: list reporter // list of three things


add (split [Uno, dos, tres] by [,] :: list ) to [list v] // adds three things to end of list

list [One, two, three] split by [,] :: list reporter // different wording

Charles12310 wrote:

What about these blocks:

(join [] [] :: operators)

(length of [list v])

(length of [])

They are both existent, and their workarounds require a “variable loop method”. So what? Does that mean they have to be removed?

That is not learning.

Suggestions are meant to understand users of all ages.

This isn't about giving them challenges.

That would be like at a school, a teacher gives a calculus test to elementary schoolers.

-Rex- wrote:

Charles12310 wrote:

What about these blocks:

(join [] [] :: operators)

(length of [list v])

(length of [])

Those blocks exist because they have much more common uses than the block suggested here, they have more basic functionality, and they would be more annoying to workaround. Scratch doesn't have custom reporters, so any workaround would be cumbersome.

They are both existent, and their workarounds require a “variable loop method”. So what? Does that mean they have to be removed?

What it is is that they have much more common uses than the block you're suggesting.

That is not learning.

What's not learning is being handed an immediate workaround to a block without much use. That would be like at school, an algebra class just tells you to enter equations into a program that solves them instead of you actually solving them yourself and understanding math better. Scratch is about problem solving. If you want to do something that doesn't exist in the language, you make a custom block. The already existing blocks are just tools that help you get there without you having to re-create every commonly-used function. Adding this block would slow learning, because then Scratchers wouldn't have to learn about the “variable loop method,” which is very common. Also, Scratchers are likely to use the “variable loop method” before using lists.

Suggestions are meant to understand users of all ages.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

This isn't about giving them challenges.

Then how do you expect Scratchers to learn?

That would be like at a school, a teacher gives a calculus test to elementary schoolers.

Except it isn't, because Scratchers aren't forced to learn at any rate. They naturally learn more things as they create progressively more complex projects.

replace [list v] to (other list)

DaSpudLord wrote:

Cream_E_Cookie wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

No support, workaroundable.

Also, there's a duplicate out there somewhere.

Anything is workaroundable.
(well, you g et my point)

Is this workaroundable?

create file [] at []::custom

Because if so, I'd love to hear the workaround. (Seriously, I would really like this.)

split [hello world] by [ ] into [list v]
/* have to hack the custom block procDef and call blocks to be able ::grey
   to specify an available list without having to type it in every time */ ::grey
define split (string) by (splitter) into (list)
delete (all v) of (list) // have to hack the list blocks
set [split_substr v] to []
set [split_i v] to [0]
if <(splitter) = []> then // empty splitter means split by each letter
  repeat (length of (string))
    change [split_i v] by (1)
    add (letter (split_i) of (string)) to (list)
  end
else
  repeat (length of (string))
    change [split_i v] by (1)
    set [split_chr v] to (letter (split_i) of (string))
    if <(split_chr) = (splitter)> then
      add (split_substr) to (list)
      set [split_substr v] to []
    else
      set [split_substr v] to (join (split_substr)(split_chr))
   end
  end
  if <not <(split_substr) = []>> then // leave no substring unadded
    add (split_substr) to (list)
  end
end

(split () by ()::operators)

Tymewalk wrote:

Support.

(The following was taken from my other suggestion for this block)

Since operators can't return strings, this would be a lists block.

split [string] at [i] into [list v] :: lists

It would add to any items already in the list. If the separator was “”, it would split at every letter. If the separator was not in the string, the list would only contain that string.

(join [] [world])