New operator (Can't really name it...)

PkmnQ

So far, here are the pros and the cons:

Pros:

Easier calculator project (very specific usage)
Cleans up the operators section by 3 blocks (negligible amount)
Easier to switch between two operators (you can solve that without making the block longer)

Cons:

Makes block longer (even if it's small it adds up, we use those operations a lot)
You would have to take more time to put them in normal scripts (again it adds up)

Last edited by PkmnQ (June 14, 2021 04:22:36)

da-maker

PkmnQ wrote:
So far, here are the pros and the cons:

Pros:
Easier calculator project (very specific usage)
Cleans up the operators section by 3 blocks (negligible amount)
Cons:
Makes block longer (even if it's small it adds up, we use those operations a lot)
You would have to take more time to put them in normal scripts (again it adds up)

I think another advantage that could be added is "easier to switch between operators".

Rather than removing the blocks from both sides and dragging the desired block from the palette, you could simply click on the drop-down and choose whatever you want. It'd become much easier to change out many operators in a short period of time.

I'm still wary of this suggestion, though. That point can be achieved without the listed cons, albeit with a different suggestion: the readdition of right-clicking to switch between related blocks. This was kind of mentioned earlier in this discussion:

Yusei-Fudo wrote:
You know, I believe your idea was in fact there back in Scratch 2. Well, something similar to it.

Of course, the suggestion I just mentioned doesn't have any of the listed pros. The aforementioned calculator project relies on being able to use a variable in place of the operation, and the block palette wouldn't receive any changes. But it does have one of the more general advantages of an operator drop-down.

fdreerf

da-maker wrote:
Of course, the suggestion I just mentioned doesn't have any of the listed pros. The aforementioned calculator project relies on being able to use a variable in place of the operation, and the block palette wouldn't receive any changes. But it does have one of the more general advantages of an operator drop-down.

However, it also doesn't have any disadvantages that this block has either, so it seems like a better solution to me.

han614698

Major Mockups (for everything that could possibly be)[FYI I’m bumping this, that’s why there’s a double post.]

Last edited by han614698 (June 14, 2021 11:22:48)

-0Nebula0-

Support! It makes it far less cluttered, and idk why it isnt already like that tbh

samq64

Bump

FireArrow879

Not if these blocks are here!

(() (+ v) (0)::operators)
((10) (- v) (3)::operators)
((4) (* v) (3)::operators)
((12) (/ v) (2)::operators)
((2) (^ v) (4)::operators)
((2) (root of v) (9)::operators)
((a)) (∩ v) ((b))::operators)
((a)) (U v) ((b))::operators)

Last edited by FireArrow879 (Oct. 5, 2021 21:33:46)

FireArrow879

I’m sorry that the blocks are undefined red, but the blocks are operator blocks.

PenguinLover1123

EatNYeet wrote:

Bump.

fdreerf wrote:
-snipping time-

Let me rephrase what I said.

Which is better?

if <(Operation)=[+]> then
set [answer v] to ((1:: variables reporter)+(2:: variables reporter))
end
if <(Operation)=[-]> then
set [answer v] to ((1:: variables reporter)-(2:: variables reporter))
end
if <(Operation)=[*]> then
set [answer v] to ((1:: variables reporter)*(2:: variables reporter))
end
if <(Operation)=[/]> then
set [answer v] to ((1:: variables reporter)/(2:: variables reporter))
end

Or…

set [answer v] to ((1::variables reporter) (Operation) (2::variables reporter)::operators)

second

hiPeeps124816

scratchieguy12345678 wrote:
No support. The only application this would be useful for would be calculators. Besides, the example you described isn't even that difficult to make.

It's simple. but it waste tons of time and even with the duplicate feature, you need to take tons of time to drag in and drag out.

linearlemur

hiPeeps124816 wrote:
scratchieguy12345678 wrote:
No support. The only application this would be useful for would be calculators. Besides, the example you described isn't even that difficult to make.
It's simple. but it waste tons of time and even with the duplicate feature, you need to take tons of time to drag in and drag out.

Tons of time, meaning like 30 seconds.

FireArrow879

It would be useful for math games on scratch, so you can do multiple operators without the time consuming process!

That’s why I support.

Last edited by FireArrow879 (July 2, 2021 19:03:37)

FireArrow879

And the unshared project that claims to be a cloud variable with letters is a rickroll.

Last edited by FireArrow879 (July 1, 2021 18:58:25)

EatNYeet

FireArrow879 wrote:
FireArrow879
A 10 year old who’s good at math. I can do addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, exponents, and algebra. I’m also good at coding on scratch, I made a cloud list before.
Boy/Male, Black/Brown-Skinned, 5th Grade, Wears Glasses, Youtuber.

This is my forum signature! It is good to make dupes/bumps, but be unique.

It seems you're trying to imitate a signature. You can create a real one here.

Last edited by EatNYeet (Aug. 1, 2021 23:59:39)

Mrcakeyman89

This is a dupe.

EatNYeet

Mrcakeyman89 wrote:
This is a dupe.

It's not. That topic is suggesting to bring back the feature where you could right click a math operator to change it. This suggestion is turning the block into one with a dropdown menu.

7salad3salad

Bring up this post
needs more attention

vudeptrai090211

support! it is more convinient!

PkmnQ

-0Nebula0- wrote:
Support! It makes it far less cluttered, and idk why it isnt already like that tbh

No, I'd say it takes clutter from one place (the block palette), exponentially increases it, and puts it in a far more important place (the scripting area)

PkmnQ

FireArrow879 wrote:
I’m sorry that the blocks are undefined red, but the blocks are operator blocks.

Do this:

(reporter :: operators)

Discuss Scratch