whenever i need a sprite to repeat until it receives a message, it's super inconvenient to have to make a way around not having this block. i get around it by making a variable for each message and then using a “repeat until variable = 1” block and then set the variable to 1 whenever the message is broadcast. but, it's super annoying and i haven't found a way to make a custom block like this because there's no option to input a message in a custom block. maybe there's a better way to do it than how i do it, but it would be SO MUCH easier with a block.
sorry if this is badly explained, i couldn't find a good way to put it in to words haha

let me know y'alls thoughts on this!

Please see The Complete List of Rejected Suggestions:

Za-Chary wrote:

1.1 “Broadcast received” boolean block
The block below would allow a project to detect when a broadcast is sent. But, there is a lot of ambiguity on how this would work. Would it return true if the broadcast was fired since the project was created, since the green flag was clicked, or since something else was broadcasted? The workaround is simple: use variables that change when a broadcast is received, then use the “equals” block.

However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this post.

[message v] received?::events boolean

Za-Chary wrote:

However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this post.

sunshine-child wrote:

sorry if this is badly explained, i couldn't find a good way to put it in to words haha

Maybe try using the scratchblocks plugin to show an image?

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/324844/ duplicate

Shock59 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this post.

The block the user is suggesting is NOT rejected, you even wrote it in your post.

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

Shock59 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this post.

The block the user is suggesting is NOT rejected, you even wrote it in your post.

Ah, but it is a duplicate.

You even wrote that on your post ;)

Duplicate here: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/324844/

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

Shock59 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this post.

The block the user is suggesting is NOT rejected, you even wrote it in your post.

It's possible the OP changed the topic title after they posted it

Sheep_maker wrote:

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

Shock59 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this post.

The block the user is suggesting is NOT rejected, you even wrote it in your post.

It's possible the OP changed the topic title after they posted it

Ah, I didn't think of that…

EIephant_Lover wrote:

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

Shock59 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this post.

The block the user is suggesting is NOT rejected, you even wrote it in your post.

Ah, but it is a duplicate.

You even wrote that on your post ;)

Duplicate here: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/324844/

I actually didn't speak about duplicates in my post.

EIephant_Lover wrote:

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

Shock59 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this post.

The block the user is suggesting is NOT rejected, you even wrote it in your post.

Ah, but it is a duplicate.

You even wrote that on your post ;)

Duplicate here: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/324844/

Erm, regardless, this is a duplicate yes. Please use the existing thread.