RobotChickens wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

(#761)

-Clickertale_2- wrote:

The fact that ST won't add this block because of “Fear of extremely large number crashing projects” is stupid since we could also do:

((-1) / (0)) // Negative Infinity
((1) / (0)) // Positive Infinity
((-1) * ([10 ^ v] of (309))) // Negative Infinity
([10 ^ v] of (309)) // Positive Infinity

and even more ways to make big numbers in regular Scratch without this block!

Scratch turns equations that evaluate to infinity into the string “infinity”- meaning that it's actually far easier for JavaScript to handle it on the backend than something like 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999, even if it's converted to a bigint.

Again, I'm talking about extremely large numbers that aren't large enough to be recognized as infinity!

when green flag clicked
forever
set [a variable v] to (join(a variable) (a variable))
end

AHypnoman wrote:

medians wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

~Snip~
That wouldn't fit any existing block shape. An entirely new block would be necessary for this.

What are you talking about??

The block proposed by the person I quoted had a dropdown, but two inputs. That block shape doesn't exist (in the operators section, at least), so what's the dropdown for? Unless ([abs v] of ()) is updated to change shape for exponent operations, the dropdown doesn't make sense. (I'm not commenting on the technicalities of implementing this, just that it doesn't make sense to have a dropdown - I should've specified what I meant in the post you quoted)

medians wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

medians wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

~Snip~
That wouldn't fit any existing block shape. An entirely new block would be necessary for this.

What are you talking about??

The block proposed by the person I quoted had a dropdown, but two inputs. That block shape doesn't exist (in the operators section, at least), so what's the dropdown for? Unless ([abs v] of ()) is updated to change shape for exponent operations, the dropdown doesn't make sense. (I'm not commenting on the technicalities of implementing this, just that it doesn't make sense to have a dropdown - I should've specified what I meant in the post you quoted)

To merge all of the blocks (well, as in +, -, *, /, and then add ^)?? Allow people to swap between the options?? What are you talking about again??
Also, no, it does not have to be in that block, it could just be separate like it always has been

medians wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

medians wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

~Snip~
That wouldn't fit any existing block shape. An entirely new block would be necessary for this.

What are you talking about??

The block proposed by the person I quoted had a dropdown, but two inputs. That block shape doesn't exist (in the operators section, at least), so what's the dropdown for? Unless ([abs v] of ()) is updated to change shape for exponent operations, the dropdown doesn't make sense. (I'm not commenting on the technicalities of implementing this, just that it doesn't make sense to have a dropdown - I should've specified what I meant in the post you quoted)

To merge all of the blocks (well, as in +, -, *, /, and then add ^)?? Allow people to swap between the options?? What are you talking about again??
Also, no, it does not have to be in that block, it could just be separate like it always has been

(() [ ^ v] ()::operators)
(() [ + v] ()::operators)

medians wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

+1, but maybe just add this?

((3) [^ v] (3)::operators)

with all the operator menus?

That wouldn't fit any existing block shape. An entirely new block would be necessary for this.

What are you talking about??
Anyways (to the person that you quoted), that would make scripts longer. I think block switching should just be reimplemented, and () ^ () could be one of the options

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

medians wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

+1, but maybe just add this?

((3) [^ v] (3)::operators)

with all the operator menus?

That wouldn't fit any existing block shape. An entirely new block would be necessary for this.

What are you talking about??
Anyways (to the person that you quoted), that would make scripts longer. I think block switching should just be reimplemented, and () ^ () could be one of the options

But it would be a good idea to still keep the old blocks, but hidden in the pallete. Just so all projects don’t break.

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

medians wrote:

AHypnoman wrote:

jmdzti_0-0 wrote:

+1, but maybe just add this?

((3) [^ v] (3)::operators)

with all the operator menus?

That wouldn't fit any existing block shape. An entirely new block would be necessary for this.

What are you talking about??
Anyways (to the person that you quoted), that would make scripts longer. I think block switching should just be reimplemented, and () ^ () could be one of the options

But it would be a good idea to still keep the old blocks, but hidden in the pallete. Just so all projects don’t break.

julmik6478 wrote:

() ^ ()::operators reporter 

You can find it in scratch++. Scratch++ is a Scratch mod that is compatible with normal Scratch.

illusionist wrote:

It can't take more than a few seconds to add, can't it?

-Clickertale_2- wrote:

The fact that ST won't add this block because of “Fear of extremely large number crashing projects” is stupid since we could also do:

((-1) / (0)) // Negative Infinity
((1) / (0)) // Positive Infinity
((-1) * ([10 ^ v] of (309))) // Negative Infinity
([10 ^ v] of (309)) // Positive Infinity

and even more ways to make big numbers in regular Scratch without this block!

MillionOfficial wrote:

+99

-Clickertale_2- wrote:

-Clickertale_2- wrote:

The fact that ST won't add this block because of “Fear of extremely large number crashing projects” is stupid since we could also do:

((-1) / (0)) // Negative Infinity
((1) / (0)) // Positive Infinity
((-1) * ([10 ^ v] of (309))) // Negative Infinity
([10 ^ v] of (309)) // Positive Infinity

and even more ways to make big numbers in regular Scratch without this block!

Also the Username block was a block that might of never of been added due to security reasons, (See the reason here) which is more understandable than not adding a block that can make large numbers!
Also I am only using Infinity as an example of a big number in this example!
I know that Infinity is a special case but I didn't want to make a weird equation multiple times to make an actual large number. Even tho this block would also produce Infinity if the numbers inputted are large enough. (I knew that Infinity is a special case while making this post but I didn't feel the need to specify the fact that Infinity is a special case since Infinity is also seen as a big number that is easier to deal with).
(If you are going to complain about me using Infinity as a big number then make me 1000 different equations in Scratch that can all make big numbers I DARE you! ).

([10 ^ v] of (308))
(([10 ^ v] of (308)) - (1))
(([10 ^ v] of (308)) - (2))
(([10 ^ v] of (308)) - (3))
(([10 ^ v] of (308)) - (4)) // You get where this is going, right?
(995 more... :: grey) // To prevent blockspam.

([10^ v] of (9))

([e^ v] of (9))

HelloJelloPeople wrote:

Two blocks that could be removed are the

([10^ v] of (9))

and

([e^ v] of (9))

as long as e is added as a valid operator input.

constant [e v]::operators reporter
constant [pi v]::operators reporter

medians wrote:

HelloJelloPeople wrote:

Two blocks that could be removed are the

([10^ v] of (9))

and

([e^ v] of (9))

as long as e is added as a valid operator input.

Maybe, if a constant block is added, like this:

constant [e v]::operators reporter
constant [pi v]::operators reporter

SpyCoderX wrote:

Also, if you have an “advanced math” section, the stuff in it could have a “?” next to them which gives an explanation of that block when clicked.