Non void functions

Zappy1333

In scratch, if you make a block, it can use arguments, but it cannot return a value.

Example:

set [name] to [generate_name()]

I thin this would be a very useful feature because although there are ways to do this, it requires more blocks

Thankyou- Zappy1333

Supporters:

gregory9
RalphMath
hppavilion

Last edited by Zappy1333 (Jan. 4, 2015 11:12:15)

DemCupcakesYo

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Could you please explain?

Zappy1333

DemCupcakesYo wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Could you please explain?

What I mean is, when you make a block, it can return a variable that can be set inside the define block

Here is a link I found about functions

It's the alternative of doing this:

define RandomBlock
set (return value::motion) to (pick random (1) to (10))


when green flag clicked
RandomBlock
set (x::motion) to (return value::motion)

because instead you could do this:

define RandomBlock
return (pick random (1) to (10))


when green flag clicked
set (x::motion) to ({RandomBlock :: looks})

Last edited by Zappy1333 (Jan. 4, 2015 11:18:57)

gregory9

Support.

stickfiregames

This already suggests custom reporters and booleans.

define(function(arg1 :: custom-arg) (arg2 :: custom-arg) :: custom) :: custom hat
::custom cstart
...
{return (... :: grey) :: custom cap} :: custom cend cap

Last edited by stickfiregames (Dec. 7, 2014 14:09:25)

theonlygusti

Has already been suggested … a lot.

The ST have already pretty much implemented this anyways.

lalala3

theonlygusti wrote:
Has already been suggested … a lot.

The ST have already pretty much implemented this anyways.

Pretty sure they haven't. Please explain.

Oh yeah, I'd also like to add that “has already been suggested” means that you should go over there and add your support, not that you should let the issue drop.

Last edited by lalala3 (Dec. 9, 2014 23:33:49)

Zro716

theonlygusti wrote:
The ST have already pretty much implemented this anyways.

citation needed

Cyoce

theonlygusti wrote:
Has already been suggested … a lot.

The ST have already pretty much implemented this anyways.

How has the ST implemented this? Where? If it has, I support the ST making it a lot more accessible.

MegaApuTurkUltra

Zro716 wrote:
theonlygusti wrote:
The ST have already pretty much implemented this anyways.
citation needed

RalphMath

I strongly support this and not just because it would help Scratch programming. IMHO the best argument is that value returning functions are central to both programming and more generally mathematics. Without it, Scratch is not allowing what's certainly a central idea of all algorithmic systems to be explored.

A possible way to do this might be to just have a simple “return” control block, i.e.

return [ ]

It would both set the value of the block for the calling block and act as a “stop” for the custom block. It could also be used for a non-value returning block to terminate, the value wouldn't be needed in this case. This also has the advantage of looking like most other programming languages.

define Raise (base) to (exp)
if <<(base) < [0]> and <<(exp) mod [0]> > [0]>> then
return[]   // imaginary
end
if <<(base) < [0]> and (((exp) mod [2]) = [1])> then   // odd power of negative number
return(([e^ v] of (([ln v] of ([abs v] of (base))) * (exp))) * [-1])
else  // even power of any number
return([e^ v] of (([ln v] of ([abs v] of (base))) * (exp)))
end

RalphMath

To use the above:

set [value v] to (Raise [-2] to (power))

or maybe this would be clearer:

set [value v] to (call (Raise [-2] to (power)))

Zappy1333

Thanks for support!

Zappy1333

Bump

Zappy1333

Bump

Zappy1333

Bump

hppavilion

Support
And I STILL want to know where this has been implemented, if it apparently has.

Zappy1333

Bump

ChocolatePi

Zappy1333 wrote:
Bump

I believe this is working on being implemented. I saw a ST member post it on something.

Birdlegs

This really makes too much sense.

Discuss Scratch