Discuss Scratch
- GenmaiChai
- Scratcher
20 posts
CalcuBlock
I agree with the calculator idea! Mostly because I am a lazy person and don't want to do all that code!
bhlfrg
- XayCraft360
- Scratcher
100+ posts
CalcuBlock
No support, how would you put variables into the block?
<Insert copy of NilsTheBest's OLD uncreative copy of adsuri's uncreative copy of Wahsp's uncreative copy of -ShadowOfTheFuture's- uncreative signature here>
I AM NO LONGER ON SCRATCH
- Greenduck54
- Scratcher
500+ posts
CalcuBlock
Support, this really could help clean up messy equations.
No support, how would you put variables into the block?
(join (x) [+56])
Last edited by Greenduck54 (Oct. 2, 2018 12:32:13)
I used to make stuff on here, now i just come on when i'm bored, don't expect anything from me now.
Last edited by Greenduck54 (Jan. 1, 2020 00:00:00)
oh no, the joke is dead because that time is no longer in the future :I
Last edited by Greenduck54 (Apr. 20, 2069 00:00:00)
that's better
;
- filmlover12
- Scratcher
100+ posts
CalcuBlock
That is untrue. When I was a new-scratcher I couldn't create a walking man animation. Your code is way more complex than the code to make a walking man animation. As for the new block idea I give my full support. I think you need to read the community guidelines so you actually know that comments like yours are rude. I hope you understand that I am being truthful and I don't mean to insult you/make you upset by this comment. It is just the truth.I never said it's simpler than that, but it is very simple. So this:
Is simpler than this?(calculate () :: operators)And anyway that's going to be very hard to create for new scratchers
I find your second comment very insulting to new scratchers like myself.
Any person that is semi-decent at programming would be able to create this.
The more you read the more you know. The more you learn the more places you go! ~Dr Seuss
|U| :: #c300ff // My siggy protectorMy pet blue block:
< '' .. '' :: sensing> :: motion // This is my pet blue block who is very cute!
#purple is perfect! ::sound
- HTML-Fan
- Scratcher
1000+ posts
CalcuBlock
Any kind of text-based stuff is rejected. Also this was rejected.
Joke of the century: Just made a good remix of this with Scratch's music extension.
BE MOIST B) AND CHECK OUT
_____ ______ _ _
|_ _| | _ (_) (_)
| |_ _____ | | | |_ _ __ ___ ___ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ __ ___ #RoadToMoist100
| \ \ /\ / / _ \ | | | | | '_ ` _ \ / _ \ '_ \/ __| |/ _ \| '_ \/ __|
| |\ V V / (_) | | |/ /| | | | | | | __/ | | \__ \ | (_) | | | \__ \
\_/ \_/\_/ \___/ |___/ |_|_| |_| |_|\___|_| |_|___/_|\___/|_| |_|___/
- siddharthahiremath
- Scratcher
18 posts
CalcuBlock
Last edited by siddharthahiremath (July 15, 2020 21:56:35)
Hello. This is a signature
- AwezomeXD
- Scratcher
100+ posts
CalcuBlock
What? You can join in too
Anyways I support this, the workaround shown is honestly way too complicated and just having a single block would be way easier.
Hooplah
- Greg8128
- Scratcher
500+ posts
CalcuBlock
No support: This block will actually make your scripts longer. Compare the following:
(calculate (join (join(join (x)[*])(x)) [+2]) ::operators) // We need the 'join' blocks to plug the variables inMaybe a more concise version would help?
(((x)*(x))+(2))
(calculate (x)[*](x)[+2]◂▸ ::operators)Unfortunately, it's still quite a bit bulkier than the original.
- the2000
- Scratcher
1000+ posts
CalcuBlock
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. This would just swap out endlessly math blocks with endless join blocks, just this time with the threat of confusing syntax added. Would be good to teach children the pain of a missing parenthesis though No support: This block will actually make your scripts longer.
That being said, I think that there could be some potential if you need to use text syntax for some reason. This would be nice as an additional block somewhere near the bottom of the operators category, not a replacement of the existing math blocks. Here's a really basic example of what I mean:
ask [Type a math problem] and wait
say (join [The answer is:] (calculate(answer) :: operators))
- -EmeraldThunder-
- Scratcher
1000+ posts
CalcuBlock
Bump. Support. This wastes space in complex projects and so would be very usefull.
Nothing here.
- PkmnQ
- Scratcher
1000+ posts
CalcuBlock
It works better the less variables are used, but custom reporters would be better. No support: This block will actually make your scripts longer. Compare the following:(calculate (join (join(join (x)[*])(x)) [+2]) ::operators) // We need the 'join' blocks to plug the variables inMaybe a more concise version would help?
(((x)*(x))+(2))(calculate (x)[*](x)[+2]◂▸ ::operators)Unfortunately, it's still quite a bit bulkier than the original.
This is an account that exists.
Here, have a useful link:
The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary
- dertermenter
- Scratcher
1000+ posts
CalcuBlock
Yeah, this seems very text-based, and the workaround isn't that bad with chunky blocks as it still works. I think this will be confusing for new users is well.
All suggestions are unnecessary. If a suggestion is necessary then it's a bug report.
repeated privilege, not an expectationApril Fools Day on the forums has been a
- ninjaMAR
- Scratcher
1000+ posts
CalcuBlock
Semi-Support. This would be very confusing to new users and its hard to put variables inside this block, but I like it because it gives scratch a more advanced feel in the math category
- gosoccerboy5
- Scratcher
1000+ posts
CalcuBlock
I think this has a rather niche application (calculator projects), and as both Greg and 2000 thankfully pointed out, you'd still have to add a bunch of join blocks. Also what happens if you do
Or, we could do it the Snap! way:
In summary, while it would be cool to essentially have a mathematical eval() block, I think the way it might have to be implemented just isn't worth it considering the alternative (normal math blocks) and its slightly niche applications.
Edit: not to mention, there might be confusion over exactly how to use it. Kids might be used to the () * () block, but they still might try to use an x symbol for multiplication and a ÷ symbol for division, which could be a tad confusing.
calculate [1/0 * blablabla ^ syntax error lalalla] :: operators reporter(Admittedly, I think it would be nice if this was a way to support exponentiation, but we might as well implement that as a block lol)
Or, we could do it the Snap! way:
calculate [x * y] with inputs (x) (y) @delInput@addInput as (30) (24) :: operators reporter //or something similar, I'm no block designerdBut I think that kind of block syntax is best reserved for Snap!.
In summary, while it would be cool to essentially have a mathematical eval() block, I think the way it might have to be implemented just isn't worth it considering the alternative (normal math blocks) and its slightly niche applications.
Edit: not to mention, there might be confusion over exactly how to use it. Kids might be used to the () * () block, but they still might try to use an x symbol for multiplication and a ÷ symbol for division, which could be a tad confusing.
Last edited by gosoccerboy5 (March 13, 2021 15:32:51)