Easier way of combining "Join", "And" and "Or" blocks.

NilsTheBest

More like this?

(join [ v] [] :: operators )

Then we could have:

(join [4 v] [][][][] :: operators )

(join [7 v] [][][][][][][] :: operators )

etc.

That could be rather useful!
Semi-support-ish. It's not really urgent and doesn't really bother me, personally..

Last edited by NilsTheBest (Nov. 8, 2018 18:42:12)

CKCG

Yup! That's exactly what I had meant. It's more of a quality-of-life thing

CKCG

StrangeMagic32 wrote:
I agree that a
(join [# v] [] []::operators)
would be quite nice, though I do believe that they is sorta an easy work around (that does include using multiple
(join [] [])
blocks xD ) Though obviously the workaround wouldn't be as good.

Edit: since the workaround isn't that good, I support!

Edit: I made a some what simple work around with 8 joins but it's no where near what could be done with this block.

Yeah! This block would make the time of linking variables alot less, and I think it would be great!

wookie184

I like the idea but i don't think it would be easy for ST to implement because the block has to change based on arguments in the block and this doesn't happen with any other blocks

space_elephant

better way:

(join[hello ][world]@addInput::operators)

when you click the arrow, another input is added like this

(join[hello ][world][ from ][high]@delInput@addInput::operators)

if you click the left arrow, then one input will be removed

--_Nova_--

space_elephant wrote:
better way:
(join[hello ][world]@addInput::operators)
when you click the arrow, another input is added like this
(join[hello ][world][ from ][high]@delInput@addInput::operators)
if you click the left arrow, then one input will be removed

Support for this.

NilsTheBest

space_elephant wrote:
better way:
(join[hello ][world]@addInput::operators)
when you click the arrow, another input is added like this
(join[hello ][world][ from ][high]@delInput@addInput::operators)
if you click the left arrow, then one input will be removed

Brilliant!

Support, I think this would be easier to use and practical ^^

NickVBen

space_elephant wrote:
better way:
(join[hello ][world]@addInput::operators)
when you click the arrow, another input is added like this
(join[hello ][world][ from ][high]@delInput@addInput::operators)
if you click the left arrow, then one input will be removed

support for that

badatprogrammingibe

I do not support this suggestion as fields with multiple inputs would require too much of a change in how scratch works for it to be feasible for the development of scratch 3.0.

space_elephant

NilsTheBest wrote:
space_elephant wrote:
better way:
(join[hello ][world]@addInput::operators)
when you click the arrow, another input is added like this
(join[hello ][world][ from ][high]@delInput@addInput::operators)
if you click the left arrow, then one input will be removed
Brilliant!
Support, I think this would be easier to use and practical ^^

This is not my idea! It is the way it works in Snap!
I also think the if block should

if<>{
}@addInput@addInput::control

if<>{
}@addInput else{
}@delInput::control

the first arrow can add else ifs

if<>{
}else if<>{
}else if<>{
}@delInput@addInput else{
}@delInput::control

Scratch_Attacker

badatprogrammingibe wrote:
I do not support this suggestion as fields with multiple inputs would require too much of a change in how scratch works for it to be feasible for the development of scratch 3.0.

Could you clarify on what you mean? I'm guessing that your point is that ST wouldn't be able to add such feature as it'd change most of Scratch's programming, right?

Scratch_Attacker

Support, it'd allow way more complex projects that'd be small and compact.

birdoftheday

Scratch_Attacker wrote:
badatprogrammingibe wrote:
I do not support this suggestion as fields with multiple inputs would require too much of a change in how scratch works for it to be feasible for the development of scratch 3.0.
Could you clarify on what you mean? I'm guessing that your point is that ST wouldn't be able to add such feature as it'd change most of Scratch's programming, right?

That’s what they meant, but I don’t know if they’re right or wrong.
By the way, this block is in Snap https://snap.berkeley.edu

Scratch_Attacker

birdoftheday wrote:
Scratch_Attacker wrote:
badatprogrammingibe wrote:
I do not support this suggestion as fields with multiple inputs would require too much of a change in how scratch works for it to be feasible for the development of scratch 3.0.
Could you clarify on what you mean? I'm guessing that your point is that ST wouldn't be able to add such feature as it'd change most of Scratch's programming, right?
That’s what they meant, but I don’t know if they’re right or wrong.
By the way, this block is in Snap https://snap.berkeley.edu

Yeah, I don’t know either. I kind of doubt it, though.

BTW, I’m on my school iPad, so I can’t check out the link.

space_elephant

birdoftheday wrote:
Scratch_Attacker wrote:
badatprogrammingibe wrote:
I do not support this suggestion as fields with multiple inputs would require too much of a change in how scratch works for it to be feasible for the development of scratch 3.0.
Could you clarify on what you mean? I'm guessing that your point is that ST wouldn't be able to add such feature as it'd change most of Scratch's programming, right?
That’s what they meant, but I don’t know if they’re right or wrong.
By the way, this block is in Snap https://snap.berkeley.edu

space_elephant wrote:
This is not my idea! It is the way it works in Snap!

CKCG

Sorry for not responding quickly, I didn´t see this in my inbox. The idea with the arrows is brilliant! Thanks all for sharing your ideas!

-DominickP-

Great idea

Last edited by -DominickP- (Nov. 13, 2018 01:38:38)

mica43683

How about when you right click it, it can give you an option to change the number of strings? Wait, just saw the arrow idea. Never mind.

You get my support.

Last edited by mica43683 (Nov. 13, 2018 12:58:32)

CKCG

Bump!

badatprogrammingibe wrote:
I do not support this suggestion as fields with multiple inputs would require too much of a change in how scratch works for it to be feasible for the development of scratch 3.0.

The scratch team has definetly overcome harder things, but now we need them to see this.

CKCG

@Paddle2See (I'm not sure if this makes a thing popup to bring you here but here goes) You're the only scratch team member that i know the name of, so can we have your opinion on this block? (look at the stuff before this)

Last edited by CKCG (Nov. 20, 2018 00:18:16)

Discuss Scratch