Hello, you should update this block:

(round())

into a function that is made like:

([round v]of()::operators)

because it look more better than the other one.

No support, I think it looks fine already.

derpmeup wrote:

No support, I think it looks fine already.

Are you sure they gone remove the old round(number) block and turn into a function that uses (|round v| of (number))?

No support. This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.

DevanWolf wrote:

You should make this block:

(round())

into a function that is:

([round v]of()::operators)

because it look more better than the other one.

Yeah, but it sounds really weird - “round of x”.

If this were implemented, it would probably have to look more like this:

([sin of v] () :: operators) 
([cos of v] () :: operators) 
([tan of v] () :: operators) 
([abs of v] () :: operators) 
//etc...
([round v] () :: operators) 

which is just stranger…

when I receive[Is it released? v]
say(if<([round v] of (1)::operators)>(0)>then[YAY!!! IT'S FINALLY RELEASED!!! :D]else[No, It's Not Released! :(]::operators)

Random version of my crazy round detector

*Bumps*

I would support this since it makes it easier to switch between the operator blocks.

To everyone saying that “round of” doesn't make sense, neither does “10^ of” because it would be read as “10 to the power of of”. Anyway that wouldn't stop the from making the block.

No support. And because it would look like this:

([round v] () :: operators // That would probably look weird

Or:

([round v] of (9) :: operators // That would just look strange

Original:

(round ())

Hockeyist wrote:

This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.

stickfiregames wrote:

I would support this since it makes it easier to switch between the operator blocks.

To everyone saying that “round of” doesn't make sense, neither does “10^ of” because it would be read as “10 to the power of of”. Anyway that wouldn't stop the from making the block.

But because ^ is a symbol, it's meaning is not directly read - I still read it “10 to the power of” because the of is simply not read when reading it like that.

But “round of” is much more obviously weird.

stickfiregames wrote:

I would support this since it makes it easier to switch between the operator blocks.

To everyone saying that “round of” doesn't make sense, neither does “10^ of” because it would be read as “10 to the power of of”. Anyway that wouldn't stop the from making the block.

^-^

AonymousGuy wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

I would support this since it makes it easier to switch between the operator blocks.

To everyone saying that “round of” doesn't make sense, neither does “10^ of” because it would be read as “10 to the power of of”. Anyway that wouldn't stop the from making the block.

But because ^ is a symbol, it's meaning is not directly read - I still read it “10 to the power of” because the of is simply not read when reading it like that.

But “round of” is much more obviously weird.

My point is that the exact reading of the block doesn't matter, because the meaning can still be understood.

DevanWolf wrote:

because it look more better than the other one.

it looks less better than the current one

your idea is actually plausible, although I wouldn't put round() with the rest of the special operators.

instead, I think we could take out floor() and ceiling() and put it in a dropdown with round(), like this:

([round v](1) ::operators)
([floor v](1) ::operators)
([ceiling v](1) ::operators)

so I half-support

Zro716 wrote:

your idea is actually plausible, although I wouldn't put round() with the rest of the special operators.

instead, I think we could take out floor() and ceiling() and put it in a dropdown with round(), like this:

([round v](1) ::operators)
([floor v](1) ::operators)
([ceiling v](1) ::operators)

so I half-support

Support

TimothyLawyer wrote:

DevanWolf wrote:

because it look more better than the other one.

it looks less better than the current one

Really!? I want to make

(round())

in all in one block! So that I can usually switch between the round choice and each one with the dropdown instead of switching the blocks around.

Didn't you reply to my answer? VV

No support. And because it would look like this:

([round v] () :: operators // That would probably look weird

Original:

(round ())

TheHockeyist wrote:

This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.

Firedrake969 wrote:

Zro716 wrote:

your idea is actually plausible, although I wouldn't put round() with the rest of the special operators.

instead, I think we could take out floor() and ceiling() and put it in a dropdown with round(), like this:

([round v](1) ::operators)
([floor v](1) ::operators)
([ceiling v](1) ::operators)

so I half-support

Support

Actually this sounds like a better suggestion since it allows easier switching between the different rounding functions without having too many functions on one block.

HOWING wrote:

Didn't you reply to my answer? VV

No support. And because it would look like this:

([round v] () :: operators // That would probably look weird

Original:

(round ())

TheHockeyist wrote:

This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.

I don't know what you mean by replying your answer!?