(answer1)
(answer2)
(answer3)

you know what would be good? if scratch added answer# inputs. they would make it easier to make calculators. they could be used like this.

 
say ((answer1)+(answer2))

i looked in the list of rejected suggestions earlier, and this wasn't on there. hopefully, this might get accepted. who knows?

No support, having more than one answer block would just add to many unneeded blocks. Just use variables.

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

No support, having more than one answer block would just add to many unneeded blocks. Just use variables.

ok i think i'm dumb lol

(i (am (dumb (lol)))

Could you just use multiple ask blocks, and variable blocks?

set [... v] to (answer)

ScolderCreations wrote:

Could you just use multiple ask blocks, and variable blocks?

set [... v] to (answer)

that would also work too.

If you want to store multiple answers, you can do:

add (answer) to [list v]

It's pretty quick to set up, so I think we don't need multiple answer reporters right now.

if we had that, we'd need

(answer1 ::sensing)
(answer2 ::sensing)
(answer3 ::sensing)
(answer4 ::sensing)
(answer5 ::sensing)
(answer6 ::sensing)
(answer7 ::sensing)
(answer8 ::sensing)
(answer9 ::sensing)
(answer10 ::sensing)

etc.

answer [1 v]::sensing reporter
latest answer::sensing reporter

would be the solution.
I think that this:

when gf clicked
ask [Number 1 v] and wait
ask [Number 2 v] and wait
say ((answer [1 v]::sensing)+(answer [2 v]::sensing))

is just a worse version of this:

when gf clicked
say ((ask [Number 1] and wait) + (ask [Number 2] and wait))

(https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/313555/)
As your suggestion is harder to use, I don't support - but it's better than nothing, so semi-support leaning to no support.

mybearworld wrote:

answer [1 v]::sensing reporter
latest answer::sensing reporter

would be the solution.
I think that this:

when gf clicked
ask [Number 1 v] and wait
ask [Number 2 v] and wait
say ((answer [1 v]::sensing)+(answer [2 v]::sensing))

is just a worse version of this:

when gf clicked
say ((ask [Number 1] and wait) + (ask [Number 2] and wait))

(https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/313555/)
As your suggestion is harder to use, I don't support - but it's better than nothing, so semi-support leaning to no support.

i think your version of the input is way better that what i had in mind.

Support. I think it is useful in cɑlculɑtors ɑnd more.

hello! welcome to my signɑture!:: hat
sɑy this signɑture is ɑwesome:: stack
love, fɑvorite ReefChong's projects ɑnd follow him:: cap

graham3078 wrote:

mybearworld wrote:

answer [1 v]::sensing reporter
latest answer::sensing reporter

would be the solution.
I think that this:

when gf clicked
ask [Number 1 v] and wait
ask [Number 2 v] and wait
say ((answer [1 v]::sensing)+(answer [2 v]::sensing))

is just a worse version of this:

when gf clicked
say ((ask [Number 1] and wait) + (ask [Number 2] and wait))

(https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/313555/)
As your suggestion is harder to use, I don't support - but it's better than nothing, so semi-support leaning to no support.

i think your version of the input is way better that what i had in mind.

What about this:

when gf clicked
ask [Number 1?] and wait for answer [1 v] :: sensing
ask [Number 2?] and wait for answer [2 v] :: sensing
say ((answer [1 v] :: sensing) + (answer [2 v] :: sensing)

--hell0w0rld-- wrote:

graham3078 wrote:

mybearworld wrote:

answer [1 v]::sensing reporter
latest answer::sensing reporter

would be the solution.
I think that this:

when gf clicked
ask [Number 1 v] and wait
ask [Number 2 v] and wait
say ((answer [1 v]::sensing)+(answer [2 v]::sensing))

is just a worse version of this:

when gf clicked
say ((ask [Number 1] and wait) + (ask [Number 2] and wait))

(https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/313555/)
As your suggestion is harder to use, I don't support - but it's better than nothing, so semi-support leaning to no support.

i think your version of the input is way better that what i had in mind.

What about this:

when gf clicked
ask [Number 1?] and wait for answer [1 v] :: sensing
ask [Number 2?] and wait for answer [2 v] :: sensing
say ((answer [1 v] :: sensing) + (answer [2 v] :: sensing)

i think that version is kinda confusing. i like the first one better.