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

I'm no longer active on these forums.

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!

I'm no longer active on these forums.

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

Google Chrome Version 76.0.3809.132 (Official Build) (64-bit)
I've been programming with Scratch for over 5 years, more recently i have learned Python and i am currently experimenting with c++

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

red link

[url=redlink.com][color=red][u]red link[/u][/color][/url]

--_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

groobular

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

red link

[url=redlink.com][color=red][u]red link[/u][/color][/url]

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?

i have left scratch. forget about me

Scratch_Attacker

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

i have left scratch. forget about me

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

Am I the only person who likes 3.0 better than 2.0, or do the people who do just not talk about it?

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.

i have left scratch. forget about me

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!

red link

[url=redlink.com][color=red][u]red link[/u][/color][/url]

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!

I'm no longer active on these forums.

-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)

I got a lot of compliments on my last signature, and I think that's kind of strange. I wrote it when I was 12 and it wasn't very good. I acted like PS4 controllers were the epitome of human technology, for God's sake! I tried too hard to be philosophical, or maybe I tried too hard to be funny, or maybe it was something else. But that signature was bad. It wasn't good. It might be strange for some of you to hear this, seeing as this site is full of kids, but 12-year-old me was practically a baby. I think that's something you realise when you grow up. That you're always better than you were last year. I was looking through old Skype messages between me and a friend of mine from when we were 12, and as I read them, I couldn't stop thinking, “Woah. I was the worst.” It's important to know that you're always the worst. I can almost guarantee that future you is thinking negatively of you right now, just as future me is thinking negatively of me. It's important not to let that get to you. Remember to stay in the present. Tomorrow hates you, but it can't hurt you because you'll never get to tomorrow. When I was 10 or 11, I remember seeing the world very cynically. I thought that human life was inherently selfish, and that we were only put on this planet to destroy it. I'm so glad 10 or 11 year old me is gone, because 17 year old me would NOT get along with that kid.

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.

I'm no longer active on these forums.

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)

I'm no longer active on these forums.

Discuss Scratch