Stop(this loop v) ::control

this would be a scratch block that when used, does what it says, breaks out of a loop!

(example)
|
|
|
V

when green flag clicked
set [my variable v] to [0]
set [ random variable v] to (pick random (1) to (900))
repeat (900)
change [my variable v] by (1)
if < (my variable)  =  (random variable) > then
Stop(this loop v) ::control

end

end
do whatever now

(for context, if a loop is inside a loop it wont stop both loops, only the one its in.)
(this wont do anything outside a loop)

Support. This would be just plain useful and would be probably easy to implement. This shouldn't be the top priority of the ST of course.

stop [this script v]

This block exists already

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

stop [this script v]

This block exists already

The issue with that is that it doesnt carry on with blocks after the loop, and just cancels the entire script.

Also, couldnt you use broadcasts for this?

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

(#3)

stop [this script v]

This block exists already

OP wants to stop the loop and continue the code, not the entire paragraph of code.
Just clarifying.

EDIT: Darn it, I got ninja'd — Well played. i am going to eat your palacsinta (/j)

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

stop [this script v]

This block exists already

why aren't kids smarter?
They mean break out of the current loop, not break out of the current script/stop the script.

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

stop [this script v]

This block exists already

why aren't kids more smarter?
They mean break out of the current loop, not break out of the current script/stop the script.

oh i understand now this would be pretty useful for stuff

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

stop [this script v]

This block exists already

why aren't kids more smarter?
They mean break out of the current loop, not break out of the current script/stop the script.

oh i understand now this would be pretty useful for stuff

first of all, __Falcon-Games__, be nice, second of all, look:

repeat until <>

end

amazing, right?

CrazyCoder1247 wrote:

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

stop [this script v]

This block exists already

why aren't kids more smarter?
They mean break out of the current loop, not break out of the current script/stop the script.

oh i understand now this would be pretty useful for stuff

first of all, __Falcon-Games__, be nice, second of all, look:

repeat until <>

end

amazing, right?

1. I am being nice, I was just wondering a question which I put in small tags which didn't have to be noticed by anyone which wasn't meant to cause any offense
2. What does that have to do with this suggestion?

CrazyCoder1247 wrote:

(#8)
-snip-

welp thats a bamboozle in my book
i forgot it existed despite using it several minutes ago

edit: Even if you need the criteria there's no jumping over this block.

CrazyCoder1247 wrote:

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Scratchcat12562 wrote:

stop [this script v]

This block exists already

why aren't kids more smarter?
They mean break out of the current loop, not break out of the current script/stop the script.

oh i understand now this would be pretty useful for stuff

first of all, __Falcon-Games__, be nice, second of all, look:

repeat until <>

end

amazing, right?

i see, also funny how you say be nice, then immediately switch to sarcasm.

quadruple_door wrote:

(#11)
i see, also funny how you say be nice, then immediately switch to sarcasm.

oh come on, we all love us some sarcasm
especially since repeat until is from control so we actually wouldn't really need a dropdown, since we already are getting our if statement

(dont mind the fact its in hungarian)

EDIT: rough around the edge, even if Scratch is meant to be simple.
Anyone able to provide an example where repeat until <> canNOT be used for a line of code?

Zydrolic wrote:

Anyone able to provide an example where repeat until <> canNOT be used for a line of code?

do init stuff here :: control
forever
if < cond :: operators > then 
do stuff here :: control
stop [this loop v]
else
do other stuff here :: control
end
end
do final stuff here :: control

If someone can find replacement code for this using repeat until <> then I will stop supporting this suggestion.

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

(#13)

forever
if < cond :: operators > then 
do stuff here :: control
stop [this loop v]
else
do other stuff here :: control
end
end
do final stuff here :: control

... // whatever
repeat until <condition if needed :: operators>
if <condition :: operators> then
... // "other" code
else
... // do whatever

or do it the opposite way, whatever is needed
anything?

Zydrolic wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

(#13)

forever
if < cond :: operators > then 
do stuff here :: control
stop [this loop v]
else
do other stuff here :: control
end
end
do final stuff here :: control

... // whatever
repeat until <condition if needed :: operators>
if <condition :: operators> then
... // "other" code
else
... // do whatever

or do it the opposite way, whatever is needed
anything?

OBJECTION! that was a reference It needs to break out of the loop there but it doesn't in the other code, it will check if it's that condition then do that code and keep repeating it until the specified condition, it needs to break out of it and go onto the final stuff in the other code.

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

OBJECTION! that was a reference It needs to break out of the loop there but it doesn't in the other code, it will check if it's that condition then do that code and keep repeating it until the specified condition, it needs to break out of it and go onto the final stuff in the other code.

HOLD IT! i get it You can just put another condition afterwards to check what part of the code it requires or needs to run again before proceeding onto the final line of code.
In short:

Zydrolic wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

OBJECTION! that was a reference It needs to break out of the loop there but it doesn't in the other code, it will check if it's that condition then do that code and keep repeating it until the specified condition, it needs to break out of it and go onto the final stuff in the other code.

HOLD IT! i get it You can just put another condition afterwards to check what part of the code it requires or needs to run again before proceeding onto the final line of code.
In short:

TAKE THAT! If the condition is something that will be different when it reaches the final part of the code then it needs to break the loop there so the condition is the same.
this is not a good argument but I am trying to get this suggestion accepted now, whatever it may take

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

(#17)
TAKE THAT! If the condition is something that will be different when it reaches the final part of the code then it needs to break the loop there so the condition is the same.
this is not a good argument but I am trying to get this suggestion accepted now, whatever it may take

heh, did'ja really think you could-
…
welp.
ya got me.

bump

*cough*

repeat (you can’t change the number after it starts)

end

You could technically use variables but you would need to make a new one for each loop
And also I guess

For each [i v] to (10){

}::control

But it doesn’t exist in the normal pallet anymore