Support.

Cyoce wrote:

Having a dropdown would make it cumbersome. Make it like this

() rounded to the nearest (1 v) :: operators reporter
() floored to the nearest (1 v) :: operators reporter
() ceilinged to the nearest (1 v) :: operators reporter

Ah, that's a nice idea..

Scratchifier wrote:

ChocolatePi wrote:

Scratch is not a place to have stuff done for you. Pretty soon, people are gonna be suggesting stuff like

when green flag pressed
play tic-tac-toe game
quit

you should do stuff yourself, and if you're too lazy or not smart enough, you don't need it.

…

What I meant is that if you're not smart enough to know a workaround (those new guys and people who just can't ) you probably won't need it in your project.

Alternatively,

(round () to the nearest (1 v) :: operators)

Would work just as well. The problem I see with the dropdown is that (a) you can’t support rounding to any number; and (b) changing what it rounds to would be harder, as it wouldn’t accept a number input. Here’s an example of what mine could be used for

define snap cursor to grid of size (s)
go to x: (round (mouse x) to the nearest (s) :: operators) y: (round (mouse y) to the nearest (s) :: operators)

Cyoce wrote:

Alternatively,

(round () to the nearest (1 v) :: operators)

Would work just as well. The problem I see with the dropdown is that (a) you can’t support rounding to any number; and (b) changing what it rounds to would be harder, as it wouldn’t accept a number input. Here’s an example of what mine could be used for

define snap cursor to grid of size (s)
go to x: (round (mouse x) to the nearest (s) :: operators) y: (round (mouse y) to the nearest (s) :: operators)

You do realize that I put your suggestion in my OP, right?

Scratchifier wrote:

Cyoce wrote:

Alternatively,

(round () to the nearest (1 v) :: operators)

Would work just as well. The problem I see with the dropdown is that (a) you can’t support rounding to any number; and (b) changing what it rounds to would be harder, as it wouldn’t accept a number input. Here’s an example of what mine could be used for

define snap cursor to grid of size (s)
go to x: (round (mouse x) to the nearest (s) :: operators) y: (round (mouse y) to the nearest (s) :: operators)

You do realize that I put your suggestion in my OP, right?

Yes, and thanks for that. However, I came up with a different way to format the block that might be less confusing. Then I gave some examples of advantages that my way of doing the block would offer. I was further building on to the concept.

@Cyoce

Ah, that makes more sense. Personally, I prefer your way, but mine would be easier for beginners to understand… Any ideas on combining yours with words like “to the ones place”, etc?

I support this:

(round (3.14159265) to (4) decimal places :: operators)

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

I support this:

(round (3.14159265) to (4) decimal places :: operators)

Hmm. Interesting take, however it seems to not have a clear solution, for example Cyoce's block would work for both “31402921039210391” and “3.14029210392031” (Yes, I know that's not pi, I got lazy. )

Would you do “-4” decimal places for large numbers?

Support. The workaround takes too long to do and is very easy to mess up.

MushroomMan99 wrote:

Support. The workaround takes too long to do and is very easy to mess up.

The workaround is four blocks. xP

Scratchifier wrote:

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

I support this:

(round (3.14159265) to (4) decimal places :: operators)

Hmm. Interesting take, however it seems to not have a clear solution, for example Cyoce's block would work for both “31402921039210391” and “3.14029210392031” (Yes, I know that's not pi, I got lazy. )

Would you do “-4” decimal places for large numbers?

Yeah, you could do negative rounds for large numbers. My theory is that the less drop-downs we have the better. This just lets you have a lot more control. The only problem I see is this:

(round (3.14159265) to (2.4395) decimal places :: operators)

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

Scratchifier wrote:

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

I support this:

(round (3.14159265) to (4) decimal places :: operators)

Hmm. Interesting take, however it seems to not have a clear solution, for example Cyoce's block would work for both “31402921039210391” and “3.14029210392031” (Yes, I know that's not pi, I got lazy. )

Would you do “-4” decimal places for large numbers?

Yeah, you could do negative rounds for large numbers. My theory is that the less drop-downs we have the better. This just lets you have a lot more control. The only problem I see is this:

(round (3.14159265) to (2.4395) decimal places :: operators)

Well, I'm sure it would be pretty easy to prevent any other symbols than “-”.

I support this

That would make things SO much easier!!

(round ( __ ) by ( __ ))

Mm. I realized the workaround a while back and I honestly think it's kinda cool :3

No support

define round (number) to (place)
set [result v] to ((round ((number)*(place)))/(place))

1 for 1s place, 10 for tenths, 100 for hundreths, 0.1 for tens, 0.01 for hundreds, etc

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

No support

define round (number) to (place)
set [result v] to ((round ((number)*(place)))/(place))

1 for 1s place, 10 for tenths, 100 for hundreths, 0.1 for tens, 0.01 for hundreds, etc

IK the workarounds, it's just an improvement suggestion.

i agree

No support, workaround-able.