No support. Honestly, why would anyone need xor anyway?


The not block is useful. You can use it to make sure a variable is not a certain value.
The and block is useful. You can use it to see if a sprite is being clicked.
The or block is useful. You can use it to know when either the enemy or the player has died.


What's the use for the xor block?

DadOfMrLog wrote:

To repeat what AonymousProfessor said, and to apply it to the examples given above…

First, the example from ExtremeLogic:

when green flag clicked
if < not <<(variable1) = [1]> = <(variable2) = [2]> > > then
    Some Block
end

Then your own example:

when green flag clicked
forever
if <key [left arrow v] pressed?> then{
change x by (3)
}
else{
if <key [right arrow v] pressed?>{
change x by (-3)
}
end

Using “not (a=b)” is far more concise than using “(a or b) and (not (a and b))” - since Scratch lets you drop in booleans for a and b.

Wouldn't an else branch be used for this? (holy . I messed up the order of the two scripts)

when green flag clicked
forever
    if < not < < key [left arrow v] pressed? > = < key [right v] pressed? > > > then
    
if <key [left arrow v] pressed?> then
    
change x by (3)
end
if <key [right arrow v] pressed?> then
    
change x by (-3)
end
end
end

bumped from a duplicate topic

Thats an XOR. What you can do instead is:

if <<Var1> or <Var2>> then
if <not <[Var1] = [Var2]>> then
say [This is the workaround]
end
end

Mr_erson wrote:

Thats an XOR. What you can do instead is:

if <<Var1> or <Var2>> then
if <not <[Var1] = [Var2]>> then
say [This is the workaround]
end
end

incorrectly used, let me help correct your mistake:

if <not <[something] = [other something]>> then
do stuff::operators
end

If it's too hard to understand, could this work?

<only one of <> <> ::operators>

PkmnQ wrote:

No support. Honestly, why would anyone need xor anyway?


The not block is useful. You can use it to make sure a variable is not a certain value.
The and block is useful. You can use it to see if a sprite is being clicked.
The or block is useful. You can use it to know when either the enemy or the player has died.


What's the use for the xor block?

I support because we could use the xor block to solve a fun projecteuler question anyway that is my only reason.

I've seen 2 main workarounds for this block.

<not <<1::#888888> = <2::#888888>>>

The problem with this workaround is that not everyone knows they can put boolean blocks in those white spaces.

<<<1::#888888> or <2::#888888>> and <not <<1::#888888> and <2::#888888>>>>

The problem with this workaround is that it could be annoying to do every time you want a xor function in your project.

mumu245 wrote:

If it's too hard to understand, could this work?

<only one of <> <> ::operators>

That wouldn't work because that is ambiguous; the condition would be true if only one of these conditions what? Here's a non-ambiguous version:

only one of <1::#888888> and <2::#888888> is true?::boolean operators

Not everyone knows what xor is and I feel like this block would be useful for some people; support.

EDawg2011 wrote:

only one of <1::#888888> and <2::#888888> is true?::boolean operators

i support this block because xor is confusing for some.

i have been on scratch for 4 years and haven't founda usage for it. where would it be used

undeterminstic wrote:

(#50)
i have been on scratch for 4 years and haven't founda usage for it. where would it be used

It would be used for logic.

undeterminstic wrote:

(#50)
i have been on scratch for 4 years and haven't founda usage for it. where would it be used

Specific kinds of logic, encoding, and bitwise operations.

Workaround:

if <<<(a) = [true]> and <(b) = [false]>> or <<(a) = [false]> and <(b) = [true]>>> then
something
something
something
end

There's a simple workaround:

<not <<boolean :: grey> = <boolean2 :: grey>>> //works as XOR
<<boolean :: grey> = <boolean2 :: grey>> //works as not XOR (both booleans are true or false)

This workaround was mentioned 11 years ago.
Also, Scratch is meant to be intuitive for all ages. Calling it XOR would be confusing to most people.