Most people who've used other programming languages probably know about for loops.
How come Scratch doesn't have them yet?
I understand you can work it around with a variable, but that applies to all languages.
Why not make it the first list C block?

for each (item) in [list v] {
...
}::list //Not sure about the colour of the "item" reporter

The “item” would be duplicated when you interact with it (think custom block arguments).
Before you go and say “but there's a workaround”, that doesn't stop other languages from having them, despite being able to use while loops.
I know Scratch isn't “other languages”, but this makes it really easy to interact with everything in a list.

I support this. This is one of those blocks that you will see again in other languages. Why not here?

FancyFoxy wrote:

I support this. This is one of those blocks that you will see again in other languages. Why not here?

Because America!
No? Sorry

Anyway I give full support as well.

(also it's not important but when I was making the text grey I spelled it with an a because also america) I'll leave

DaEpikDude wrote:

Most people who've used other programming languages probably know about for loops.
How come Scratch doesn't have them yet?
I understand you can work it around with a variable, but that applies to all languages.
Why not make it the first list C block?

for each (item) in [list v] {
...
}::list //Not sure about the colour of the "item" reporter

The “item” would be duplicated when you interact with it (think custom block arguments).
Before you go and say “but there's a workaround”, that doesn't stop other languages from having them, despite being able to use while loops.
I know Scratch isn't “other languages”, but this makes it really easy to interact with everything in a list.

While it is consistent, the name isn't good.

PkmnQ wrote:

DaEpikDude wrote:

Most people who've used other programming languages probably know about for loops.
How come Scratch doesn't have them yet?
I understand you can work it around with a variable, but that applies to all languages.
Why not make it the first list C block?

for each (item) in [list v] {
...
}::list //Not sure about the colour of the "item" reporter

The “item” would be duplicated when you interact with it (think custom block arguments).
Before you go and say “but there's a workaround”, that doesn't stop other languages from having them, despite being able to use while loops.
I know Scratch isn't “other languages”, but this makes it really easy to interact with everything in a list.

While it is consistent, the name isn't good.

What would you suggest?
“For” seems to make its function clear: it does something for every item in the list.

set [counter v] to [0]
repeat (length of [list v] :: list)
change [counter v] by (1)
. . . :: grey // loop contents
end
(item (counter) of [list v] :: list) // use this for inputs

I don't see why we need it, the workaround's pretty easy. Once we get custom loops this would be even easier.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

set [counter v] to [0]
repeat (length of [list v] :: list)
change [counter v] by (1)
. . . :: grey // loop contents
end
(item (counter) of [list v] :: list) // use this for inputs

I don't see why we need it, the workaround's pretty easy. Once we get custom loops this would be even easier.

I don't think that's what they're talking about.

set [a v] to [0]
set [b v] to [0]
set [content v] to [...]
repeat (length of [list v])
change [a v] by (1)
if <(item (a) of [list v]) = (content)> then
change [b v] by (1)
end
end
repeat (b)
...
end

Charles12310 wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

set [counter v] to [0]
repeat (length of [list v] :: list)
change [counter v] by (1)
. . . :: grey // loop contents
end
(item (counter) of [list v] :: list) // use this for inputs

I don't see why we need it, the workaround's pretty easy. Once we get custom loops this would be even easier.

I don't think that's what they're talking about.

set [a v] to [0]
set [b v] to [0]
set [content v] to [...]
repeat (length of [list v])
change [a v] by (1)
if <(item (a) of [list v]) = (content)> then
change [b v] by (1)
end
end
repeat (b)
...
end

he's talking about a for loop and a reporter that yields an item of a list based upon the iteration. It's really easy.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

set [counter v] to [0]
repeat (length of [list v] :: list)
change [counter v] by (1)
. . . :: grey // loop contents
end
(item (counter) of [list v] :: list) // use this for inputs

I don't see why we need it, the workaround's pretty easy. Once we get custom loops this would be even easier.

Yes, I know there is an easy workaround, but my reasoning is that for loops exist in some form in basically every language. Why don't they exist in Scratch?

DaEpikDude wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

set [counter v] to [0]
repeat (length of [list v] :: list)
change [counter v] by (1)
. . . :: grey // loop contents
end
(item (counter) of [list v] :: list) // use this for inputs

I don't see why we need it, the workaround's pretty easy. Once we get custom loops this would be even easier.

Yes, I know there is an easy workaround, but my reasoning is that for loops exist in some form in basically every language. Why don't they exist in Scratch?

For loops are technically our

repeat ()

end

loops as all a for loop does is repeat for X number of times. It's the i (iteration) counter that allows you to act on specific items of lists. Sure, this may be hidden in some languages inside the function, but I don't think the workaround is too hard to do, especially since it lets you understand how for loops work.

Full support, though the name “for (item) in (list)” is somewhat unclear and not in Scratch's “it reads like an actually grammatically correct sentence!” like "if <> then“, ”touching ( v)?“, ”ask () and wait“, these all tell you exactly what they do, while ”for (item) in (list)" just doesn't. Perhaps something like

repeat every (item) in [list v] {
. . . :: tips
} :: list

would work better

What about

repeat through [list v] with (var :: control) as each item {
...
} :: control

Ferociousfeind wrote:

Full support, though the name “for (item) in (list)” is somewhat unclear and not in Scratch's “it reads like an actually grammatically correct sentence!” like "if <> then“, ”touching ( v)?“, ”ask () and wait“, these all tell you exactly what they do, while ”for (item) in (list)" just doesn't. Perhaps something like

repeat every (item) in [list v] {
. . . :: tips
} :: list

would work better

Other languages use “for every () in ()”.

Charles12310 wrote:

Ferociousfeind wrote:

…

Other languages use “for every () in ()”.

Scratch is meant to be easier to understand than other languages. While a for loop would be nice, the name of the block would have to be changed to something more easily understandable.

-Rex- wrote:

What about

repeat through [list v] with (var :: control) as each item {
...
} :: control

I like that wording, yeah. That's good!

Meh, I know the feeling…
and yet then there's

set [i v] to [0]
repeat (length of [list v])
change [i v] by (1)
set [var v] to (item (i) of [list v])
...
end

Support here! When I was in Python, I was super confused as to what a for loop was due to lack of corresponding Scratch Blocks,

It looks like this is a duplicate topic of this one over here, so I’ll close this thread to keep the conversation all in one place.

Feel free to continue the discussion in the link provided above.