Malicondi wrote:

How often would this ever be used? I've been on scratch for over 2 years and never had to use a workaround like or similar to this, whereas I have used the repeat until and length of blocks too many times to count.

(loudness)

forkmanb wrote:

you've only made 4 shared projects, but you could be making unshared projects so I won't count that.

forkmanb wrote:

The main one for me? CLONES. Clones require the workaround A LOT. This block would be super helpful in a lot of circumstances.

forkmanb wrote:

Malicondi wrote:

forkmanb wrote:

okay, there have been way, way too many posts saying that there's a viable workaround with variables. There's already 3 of them in this page alone.
just one thing: everyone knows. (if they read the post)
this suggestion is just to make coding easier so that you don't have to make a separate variable for each broadcast you create.
and the OP has already mentioned the workaround in the first post.

What about the larning aspect of scratch? You can't just have a block for every little thing you need to make coding simpler; using workaround encourages scratchers to think outside the box to find solutions to their problems, and also scratch doesn't want their block palette to be cluttered with many blocks that aren't really needed.

while, yes, Scratch shouldn't add blocks for literally every single thing, and workarounds encourage scratchers to use their brain, these things get a bit annoying over time. and yes, the block section may get a bit cluttered, but it's not a little thing that makes coding simpler and simpler, it just makes things less tedious. The workaround isn't really looking outside of the box, more like just a hassle that gets old really quickly. Plus, the learning aspect can be expanded using this one block, because working with clones and such would become easier, therefore letting Scratchers learn new things other than “how to broadcast something without actually broadcasting it”.

also you said “larning”

gamebeater187 wrote:

Section 1: Is this topic rejected? (Short answer: No)

(long unnecessary quote removed by moderator - please don't spam)

repeat until [broadcast v]

end

wait until [broadcast v]

broadcast (join [][])

repeat until (join [][])

end

when I receive (join [][])

starlightsparker wrote:

the workaround is insanely easy wym

set [var v] to ((var) + (2))

change [var v] by (2)

blablablahello wrote:

not its not. it literally says “However, the blocks “repeat until broadcast received” and “wait until broadcast received” are NOT rejected; you can discuss them on this topic.” (and guess what? “this topic” literally links to THIS topic)

lapisi wrote:

mumu245 wrote:

(#454)
Fun fact:
-snip-
These are the message blocks in one of the earliest versions of Scratch from 2004.
So the ST has likely had your idea before…

they would've mentioned that already if they did

medians wrote:

(#486)
~snip~

lapisi wrote:

mumu245 wrote:

(#454)
Fun fact:
-snip-
These are the message blocks in one of the earliest versions of Scratch from 2004.
So the ST has likely had your idea before…

they would've mentioned that already if they did

Late, but hold on, who are you referring to? If you mean the ST, that may not be the case.

lapisi wrote:

medians wrote:

(#486)
~snip~

lapisi wrote:

mumu245 wrote:

(#454)
Fun fact:
-snip-
These are the message blocks in one of the earliest versions of Scratch from 2004.
So the ST has likely had your idea before…

they would've mentioned that already if they did

Late, but hold on, who are you referring to? If you mean the ST, that may not be the case.

I don't remember exactly but I believe I was trying to say that they would've mentioned this and explained why they removed them