Why did you change the block name to “run {} and {}”? It isn't possible to tell that the inputs run at the same time now.

Maximouse wrote:

Why did you change the block name to “run {} and {}”? It isn't possible to tell that the inputs run at the same time now.

I agree, “run while running” would be a bit more descriptive

Maximouse wrote:

Why did you change the block name to “run {} and {}”? It isn't possible to tell that the inputs run at the same time now.

Because

fdreerf wrote:

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

I don't like the name of the block. I like the idea of being able to run two scripts at once* in an E block, but “do while doing” is such a clunky and inelegant name, especially with the verb “do”. I personally can't think of a better name, but it just feels gross to say and read.

Can't disagree there. The name used to be, “Run, while running,” as in, it runs code while running other code, but it was changed due to people thinking some people might be confused as new coders might not understand what run in this context means.

I honestly think I should get the old name back, what do you think?

I think less is more when it comes to blocks. Perhaps

run {
} and {
} ::control

could work, though it'd be weird to refer to this block's name.

But yeah, I didn't think of that. Should we just go back to the OG name now?

(long unnecessary quote removed by moderator - please don't spam)

Support! I think that would be usefull!

please don't quote the OP when it's long, it's basically spam

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

Should we just go back to the OG name now?

Maybe.

I think a better name would be
Run {} while running at the same time {}

lovecodeabc wrote:

I think a better name would be
Run {} while running at the same time {}

I think that would be too long.

Support! This would be useful and the workaround is infinite blocks depending on how big of a script.

NanoPIex wrote:

NO SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST DO 2 SEPERATE SCRIPTS!

NanoPIex wrote:

Can`t you make to seperate scripts? (no support)

NanoPIex wrote:

Support! This would be useful!

NanoPIex wrote:

Support! This would be useful and the workaround is infinite blocks depending on how big of a script.

no offense but you've said “no support” and “support” four separate times without checking to see if you've already responded or not
Remember to check for this before you post, as it can get quite spammy

NanoPIex wrote:

Support! This would be useful and the workaround is infinite blocks depending on how big of a script.

it's not possible to make a workaround for this

MeIzAwezomeDede wrote:

NanoPIex wrote:

NO SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST DO 2 SEPERATE SCRIPTS!

NanoPIex wrote:

Can`t you make to seperate scripts? (no support)

NanoPIex wrote:

Support! This would be useful!

NanoPIex wrote:

Support! This would be useful and the workaround is infinite blocks depending on how big of a script.

no offense but you've said “no support” and “support” four separate times without checking to see if you've already responded or not
Remember to check for this before you post, as it can get quite spammy

Okay.

bump..

Have you had those times you were going to comment on a topic about your opinion or some kind of solution?

But instead it's been brought through a roller coaster and instead you just leave it alone.

Yeah say hello to me.

eikh2 wrote:

Have you had those times you were going to comment on a topic about your opinion or some kind of solution?

But instead it's been brought through a roller coaster and instead you just leave it alone.

Yeah say hello to me.

That's me all the time

Oookay. so. I hadn't been on Scratch for a week, and when I saw the title got changed (nooooo whyyyy) I have been avoiding this for another week.. so time to get this sorted out once and for all…

So first of all, before anybody said anything about “run, while running” I was actually planning on saying that I don't really like the sound of “do, while doing” and that I would give a bit more support if the block was called “run, while running” I don't have any proof, but it's true.. :P

I think the second thing would've saved a lot of conversation if I had posted this earlier– Making it work like else-if:

run { 
} while running { 
} while running { 
} :: control 

And there would either be buttons or options when right-clicked to add or remove more parts (block designer's choice :P) And it solves the problem of sounding right both when stacking them (because you won't need to directly stack them) and when referring to it too.
If only I had said this earlier.. [and support btw XD]
Post 300!!

EEEEEEE   DDDDDD    IIIIIIII  TTTTTTTT           NNN    NN     OOOOO
EE        DD    DD     II        TT     ::       NNNN   NN   OO     OO
EEEEEEE   DD    DD     II        TT              NN NN  NN   OO     OO 
EE        DD    DD     II        TT     ::       NN  NN NN   OO     OO
EE        DD    DD     II        TT              NN   NNNN   OO     OO
EEEEEEE   DDDDDD    IIIIIIII     TT              NN    NNN     OOOOO

< :: extension>
< :: custom-arg>
< :: motion>

I'd prefer being able to pass variables to broadcast blocks.

repeat until <not <(language) = [English]>>
set (language) to [Gàidhlig]    
end

support!
also wouldnt the project lag really hard?

StiwenIsHandsome wrote:

support!
also wouldnt the project lag really hard?

No, it wouldn't.

StiwenIsHandsome wrote:

support!
also wouldnt the project lag really hard?

only if you put the blocks that make run without screen refresh functions lag
ex:

forever

end
wait until <>

also just know a block like this got removed, read this