xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

j3r0_plays wrote:

Okay, let me say. I ABSOLUTELY HATE THIS IDEA. I am out of here.

Woah - did somebody really say that? I can't find the post, so I'm guessing it got deleted. And for good reason, that kinda hurt my feelings. XD Welp, I guess you can't please everybody.

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

Hmm…, in that case, maybe try reading some of the posts that say how this would be super useful for a project they're making. This is one of them :

coder2045 wrote:

Support. I've had to use eight broadcasts and ten scripts in an animation just to have characters fight over a paper airplane and I could just do:

set [marker v] to [0]
run{
line 1:: #0000dd
set [marker v] to [1]
}while running{
run{
wait until <(marker) = [1]>
line 2:: #f00000
set [marker v] to [2]
}while running{
run{
wait until <(marker) = [2]>
line 3:: #f0f000
set [marker v] to [3]
}while running{
...
}:: control
}:: control
}:: control

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

j3r0_plays wrote:

Okay, let me say. I ABSOLUTELY HATE THIS IDEA. I am out of here.

Woah - did somebody really say that? I can't find the post, so I'm guessing it got deleted. And for good reason, that kinda hurt my feelings. XD Welp, I guess you can't please everybody.

Yeah, it looks like it got deleted.
new page except i forgot to look at the number and i don't want to edit twice

run {
Support :: custom-arg
} while running {
Realy support :: list
} :: control

Run {
add [thing] to [list v]
} while running {
delete (all v) of [list v]
} :: control

scratch978654 wrote:

Wait, so if I do this:

Run {
add [thing] to [list v]
} while running {
delete (all v) of [list v]
} :: control

What will happen?

Run {
set (hacked block ::sensing hat) to [run]
say [Support!]
} while running {
if <(hacked block ::sensing hat) = [run]> then
run (say [Lots of support!] ::looks cap) for (2) seconds ::extension
end
} :: control

_RareScratch2_ wrote:

Support!

Run {
set (hacked block ::sensing hat) to [run]
say [Support!]
} while running {
if <(hacked block ::sensing hat) = [run]> then
run (say [Lots of support!] ::looks cap) for (2) seconds ::extension
end
} :: control

Maximouse wrote:

scratch978654 wrote:

Wait, so if I do this:

Run {
add [thing] to [list v]
} while running {
delete (all v) of [list v]
} :: control

What will happen?

The top script would start running first, so after the block returns the list will be empty.

-Rex- wrote:

There is literally no reason to use the suggested block in that example unless the marker variable can also be changed by another script, which would be incredibly unintuitive (especially in an animation) and therefore have a better alternative than using this block.

lisa_wolfgang wrote:

Also, this block would need a new name, as it might confuse people who are new to technology and don't know that “run” means something other than making the Scratch Cat run across the screen.

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

lisa_wolfgang wrote:

Also, this block would need a new name, as it might confuse people who are new to technology and don't know that “run” means something other than making the Scratch Cat run across the screen.

Maybe “do while doing” would be better?
It sounds a lot weirder though.

do {
} while doing {
} :: control

Maximouse wrote:

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

lisa_wolfgang wrote:

Also, this block would need a new name, as it might confuse people who are new to technology and don't know that “run” means something other than making the Scratch Cat run across the screen.

Maybe “do while doing” would be better?
It sounds a lot weirder though.

I'm not sure if it actually sounds weird:

do {
} while doing {
} :: control

scratch978654 wrote:

Yes, in fact most languages have a do-while loop, even though it does something different.

Maximouse wrote:

scratch978654 wrote:

Yes, in fact most languages have a do-while loop, even though it does something different.

And I think “do while” sounds less weird than “run while”.

Maximouse wrote:

scratch978654 wrote:

Yes, in fact most languages have a do-while loop, even though it does something different.

And I think “do while” sounds less weird than “run while”.

do {
} and {
} at the same time :: control

cooldude-222 wrote:

@xxRedTheCoderxx
can you make the block run while running it just sounds better and you don't to code you run code.

lisa_wolfgang wrote:

Also, this block would need a new name, as it might confuse people who are new to technology and don't know that “run” means something other than making the Scratch Cat run across the screen.

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:

Maybe “do while doing” would be better?

Maximouse wrote:

And I think “do while” sounds less weird than “run while”.