go to [random position v]

go to x: (pick random green circle block) y: (pick random green circle block)

myusernamegud wrote:

other blocks don't get added because there is already a way to do da same thinG and there is aNoTher way to go to random position

go to x: (pick random () to ()) y: (pick random () to ())

myusernamegud wrote:

other blocks don't get added because there is already a way to do da same thinG and there is aNoTher way to go to random position

go to x: (pick random green circle block) y: (pick random green circle block)

go to x: (pick random (1) to (100)) y: (pick random (1) to (100))

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

<[] ≤ []>

go to [random position v]

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

trfgbs wrote:

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

I don't want to remove the “Go to random position” block, first, because it is my favorite block, second, because you don't know the whole span of the screen so you CAN'T do "

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

neeb132 wrote:

trfgbs wrote:

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

I don't want to remove the “Go to random position” block, first, because it is my favorite block, second, because you don't know the whole span of the screen so you CAN'T do "

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

No, that block is a perfect workaround as far as I know

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

<not <[] > []>

WindOctahedron wrote:

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

Actually,

<not <[] > []>

works, too.

chrdagos wrote:

WindOctahedron wrote:

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

Actually,

<not <[] > []>

works, too.

is that blockspam I see?

forever

end

turn ccw () degrees

next backdrop

when [ v] key pressed

trfgbs wrote:

chrdagos wrote:

WindOctahedron wrote:

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

Actually,

<not <[] > []>

works, too.

is that blockspam I see?

No. We are just showing workarounds.

<not <[] > []>>

chrdagos wrote:

trfgbs wrote:

chrdagos wrote:

WindOctahedron wrote:

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

Actually,

<not <[] > []>

works, too.

is that blockspam I see?

No. We are just showing workarounds.

I meant the

<not <[] > []>>

part.

trfgbs wrote:

chrdagos wrote:

trfgbs wrote:

chrdagos wrote:

WindOctahedron wrote:

neeb132 wrote:

Doing

go to x: (pick random (-240) to (240)) y: (pick random (-180) to (180))

Is just about as annoying has having to do this

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>

So by everyone's logic we should either add

<[] ≤ []>

or remove

go to [random position v]

Actually,

<not <[] > []>

works, too.

is that blockspam I see?

No. We are just showing workarounds.

I meant the

<not <[] > []>>

part.

Yea, that's showing a workaround too.

<not <[] > []>>

<[] < []>