Not equal operator

BANANAAPPLE1234567

There should be a not equal operator

<[] not equal []>

PaperMarioFan2022

Why can't you just use a workaround for this? Just wondering.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you meant by “not equal” but do you mean this?

(not() + (0))

Last edited by PaperMarioFan2022 (Nov. 6, 2023 19:09:08)

cookieclickerer33

This is a dupe but my paste button broke
My browser / operating system: MacOS Macintosh X 10.15.7, Safari 16.4, No Flash version detected
Rip

Captain-Doggo

Workaround?

<not <[foo] = [foo]>

Unity_and_Cq

Captain-Doggo wrote:
(#4)
Workaround?
<not <[foo] = [foo]>

Yeah. Plus this workaround is quite easy to have.

The_Game_

We do not need this, the workaround is not only incredibly easy, but also very clear that it exists unlike previous costume

cookieclickerer33

cookieclickerer33 wrote:
This is a dupe but my paste button broke
My browser / operating system: MacOS Macintosh X 10.15.7, Safari 16.4, No Flash version detected
Rip

qwerty_wasd_gone

<[] ≠ []::operators>

Support, 2 blocks is way harder /j

Support because I won't say easy workaround.

SSScratcherSSS

-1 This is one of the easiest workarounds.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/387772/ A duplicate

Last edited by SSScratcherSSS (Nov. 7, 2023 23:59:19)

106809nes

BANANAAPPLE1234567 wrote:
There should be a not equal operator
<[] not equal []>

<not <[...] = [...]>>
<not <((...) + (...)) = [...]>>
<not <((...) - (...)) = [...]>>
<not <((...) * (...)) = [...]>>
<not <((...) / (...)) = [...]>>

Last edited by 106809nes (Nov. 8, 2023 00:02:47)

CAPoftruth-alt

There's a workaround, which is easy and new users might learn that by themselves.
No support.

MagicCoder330

There IS a workaround, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be added. Would be just that little bit easier. Would be easy to implement, too.

Last edited by MagicCoder330 (Nov. 8, 2023 22:13:13)

yadayadayadagoodbye

MagicCoder330 wrote:
There IS a workaround, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be added. Would be just that little bit easier. Would be easy to implement, too.

the issue is more so that this is repetitive. Its not even really a workaround, the purpose of the not operator is to do this, its THE purpose

-OdysseyCentral-

No support. There is a workaround.

Just kidding, that’s not the only reason. Scratch is about learning to code. If we just give everything to new users for free, we will limit how far their imagination can go, which results in less things they could learn. I love Scratch for how it doesn’t just give you things like text engines etc. right away, you have to make them yourself, you have to use your imagination. And while yes, this would have a small impact, it still limits an user’s imagination to some degree.

BANANAAPPLE1234567

hi its me again my brain was dumb dumb when i posted this and absolutely forgot there was a not operator soo.. yeah.

PaperMarioFan2022

No support. There's a workaround like this that I've posted before (it's not a workaround, but oh well.):

PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:
Anyway, I'm not sure what you meant by “not equal” but do you mean this?
(not() + (0))

and:

<not <[] > (() + (0))>>

Last edited by PaperMarioFan2022 (Nov. 9, 2023 13:41:16)

cookieclickerer33

SSScratcherSSS wrote:
-1 This is one of the easiest workarounds.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/387772/ A duplicate

WHY IS THIS STILL OPEN

PaperMarioFan2022

cookieclickerer33 wrote:
SSScratcherSSS wrote:
-1 This is one of the easiest workarounds.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/387772/ A duplicate
WHY IS THIS STILL OPEN

Probably because it wasn't reported to be closed…

Last edited by PaperMarioFan2022 (Nov. 9, 2023 13:51:19)

cookieclickerer33

PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:
cookieclickerer33 wrote:
SSScratcherSSS wrote:
-1 This is one of the easiest workarounds.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/387772/ A duplicate
WHY IS THIS STILL OPEN
Probably because it wasn't reported to be closed…

I did (twice now) and another person did

PaperMarioFan2022

cookieclickerer33 wrote:
PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:
cookieclickerer33 wrote:
SSScratcherSSS wrote:
-1 This is one of the easiest workarounds.

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/387772/ A duplicate
WHY IS THIS STILL OPEN
Probably because it wasn't reported to be closed…
I did (twice now) and another person did

I'll report as well, and now I did. It should be closed by a moderator.

Discuss Scratch