The "Advanced Scratch" Extension

zhuoranma2006

The rejected Suggestions page said they rejected some blocks.
But what about putting them in an extension?

() & () :: operators reporter // binary
() | () :: operators reporter
() xor () :: operators reporter
() \>\> () :: operators reporter
() \<\< () :: operators reporter
Convert () to base ( 16 v) :: operators reporter
( this operand must be positive :: custom-arg ) [ to the power of v] ( ) :: operators reporter

mica43683

<...> xor <...>::operators boolean

Can be rectreated with

<not <<...> = <...>>>

cheesyfriedeggs

Last time I heard, these weren't rejected.

CatsUnited

cheesyfriedeggs wrote:
Last time I heard, these weren't rejected.

They aren't a part of the rejected suggestions sticky, but I do believe that OP thought that these things were rejected due to a large amount of No Support that the 64 bit integers suggestion received. They even recently posted on that topic stating that they wanted these things as parts of an extension shortly before making this topic:

zhuoranma2006 wrote:
AFNNetworkK12 wrote:
No support. Scratch is supposed to be simple, that would be confusing to younger people.
This is to be an extension.

Za-Chary

Could you define further what the

([] >> [] :: operators)

block does (assuming it's a boolean)?

45afc4td

zhuoranma2006 wrote:

The rejected Suggestions page said they rejected some blocks.
But what about putting them in an extension?

() & () :: operators reporter // binary
() | () :: operators reporter
() xor () :: operators reporter
() \>\> () :: operators reporter
() \<\< () :: operators reporter
Convert () to base ( 16 v) :: operators reporter
( this operand must be positive :: custom-arg ) [ to the power of v] ( ) :: operators reporter

No support for the first five, as those would be too confusing when performed on doubles. I withdraw the no support if the blocks don't accept doubles, but are rather used on one or more fixed point formats, such as the unsigned 64-bit integer *uint64_t* (Scratch Discuss doesn't allow the

character and the

character for some reason). The base conversion is an interesting idea, as Scratch already supports hexadecimal numbers as of version 2.0 and 3.0. The exponent is already a suggestion.

Last edited by 45afc4td (Dec. 17, 2019 16:14:38)

weegaweek

Za-Chary wrote:
Could you define further what the
([] >> [] :: operators)
block does (assuming it's a boolean)?

i think its a bitwise shift.

([x] >> [y] :: operators)

means that each bit in the number x gets moved y bits right

Last edited by weegaweek (Dec. 17, 2019 17:08:23)

weegaweek

heres a simple workaround for the last one.

x to the power of y =

([10 ^ v] of ((y) * ([log v] of (x))))

45afc4td

weegaweek wrote:
Za-Chary wrote:
Could you define further what the
([] >> [] :: operators)
block does (assuming it's a boolean)?
i think its a bitwise shift.
([x] >> [y] :: operators)
means that each bit in the number x gets moved y bits right

But how would a bitshift in floating point make sense? Wouldn't shifting each bit in the floating point representation corrupt the number?

Farenhite

weegaweek wrote:
heres a simple workaround for the last one.

x to the power of y =
([10 ^ v] of ((y) * ([log v] of (x))))

Doesn't work for negatives unless an if-else statement is used.

--Explosion--

What is a bilshift?

weegaweek

Farenhite wrote:
weegaweek wrote:
heres a simple workaround for the last one.

x to the power of y =
([10 ^ v] of ((y) * ([log v] of (x))))
Doesn't work for negatives unless an if-else statement is used.

zhuoranma2006 wrote:

( this operand must be positive :: custom-arg ) [ to the power of v] ( ) :: operators reporter

gosoccerboy5

I had a suggestion like this.. not sure if mine is a duplicate or if they're different

Can anyone tell me if they are duplicates?

imabanana22

Support. Now i can use Snap! blocks in the offical editor

mitdk

I actually support as i have seen a lot of posts get the reply of “That might be too complicated for scratch”. This would be a great way of implementing advanced features into scratch!

Greg8128

It does not make sense to include bitwise operators in Scratch.

45afc4td wrote:
zhuoranma2006 wrote:
The rejected Suggestions page said they rejected some blocks.
But what about putting them in an extension?
() & () :: operators reporter // binary
() | () :: operators reporter
() xor () :: operators reporter
() \>\> () :: operators reporter
() \<\< () :: operators reporter
Convert () to base ( 16 v) :: operators reporter
( this operand must be positive :: custom-arg ) [ to the power of v] ( ) :: operators reporter
No support for the first five, as those would be too confusing when performed on doubles. I withdraw the no support if the blocks don't accept doubles, but are rather used on one or more fixed point formats, such as the unsigned 64-bit integer *uint64_t* (Scratch Discuss doesn't allow the
"
character and the
'
character for some reason). The base conversion is an interesting idea, as Scratch already supports hexadecimal numbers as of version 2.0 and 3.0. The exponent is already a suggestion.

Scratch could do what Javascript does and convert the double to an integer before doing bitwise operators. Likewise, strings are cast to 0.
However, it is worth noting that bitwise operators are typically used for low-level programming, which isn't done much in Scratch.

Steve0Greatness

interesting idea…

gosoccerboy5

My suggestion is a bit more generic but maybe I'll close it for the sake of this one..

dominic305

Support because I like Scratch but feel like I'm missing out sometimes

2468mariotime2

zhuoranma2006 wrote:

The rejected Suggestions page said they rejected some blocks.
But what about putting them in an extension?

() & () :: operators reporter // binary
() | () :: operators reporter
() xor () :: operators reporter
() \>\> () :: operators reporter
() \<\< () :: operators reporter
Convert () to base ( 16 v) :: operators reporter
( this operand must be positive :: custom-arg ) [ to the power of v] ( ) :: operators reporter

The first two are too confusing.
The third has a ridiculously easy workaround
The fourth and fifth are pointless and vague (<< means a lot less than and >> means a lot greater than)
The sixth could be OK, but rarely used
The last is OK but should be written as (x)^(y) where x and y are any numbers

Discuss Scratch