Elijah999999 wrote:

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

No need.

Paddle2See wrote:

You are asking that Scratch recognize that you want the string of characters made up of numbers and operator characters be recognized as a math expression and evaluated. That's asking a lot. That's not how Scratch does math - it uses the operator blocks. Evaluating a character string as a math expression would be a new Scratch feature (and would probably require it's own block) that is actually pretty complicated since it is very easy to make a character string that is not a valid math expression, such as “1–1”. So that would have to be checked and handled. And after all that - I'm having trouble coming up with use cases. What kind of project would use this feature? Maybe a calculator simulation - which is not a very common class of projects.

I don't know if there is enough demand for this feature to make it worth the resources required to implement it.

Paddle2See wrote:

Ah, but note that the quote you have grabbed is from a suggestion that Scratch recognize that a math expression is being used purely from context. I am not rejecting the idea of having a block like this that explicitly calls for a math calculation. I still think such a block would be difficult to implement (primarily for the error handling) and have limited usefulness - so it's unlikely to be implemented. But I wouldn't rule it out categorically.

starlightsparker wrote:

This may confuse newer scratchers—I believe a better solution may be the ability to add more inputs in one operator.

TheCreatorOfUnTV wrote:

That would make this topic a duplicate of one of my topics.

Elijah999999 wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

Ah, but note that the quote you have grabbed is from a suggestion that Scratch recognize that a math expression is being used purely from context. I am not rejecting the idea of having a block like this that explicitly calls for a math calculation. I still think such a block would be difficult to implement (primarily for the error handling) and have limited usefulness - so it's unlikely to be implemented. But I wouldn't rule it out categorically.

I see.

([6] + ([5] / [8]))

Albus2023 wrote:

But if bulky scripts is what you care about why don’t you just make a block that isn’t thick??? Like just ask scratch to change the bulk multiplication settings!?

([6] + ([5] / [8]))

(((((((pick random (((((((length of <<> or <>>) - (0)) + (0)) * (0)) / (0)) - (0)) - (0)) to (10)) - (0)) / (0)) * (0)) * (0)) + (0)) - (0))

Border-Collie wrote:

snip
(I forgot how to color scratchblocks)
And it can be in the Operators category.

[scratchblocks]
(solve () :: operators)
[/scratchblocks]

Albus2023 wrote:

But if bulky scripts is what you care about why don’t you just make a block that isn’t thick??? Like just ask scratch to change the bulk multiplication settings!?

([6] + ([5] / [8]))

calculate [-2 - 4]::operators reporter

LaughabIe wrote:

you also have to consider how this would even calculate math equations very well. how would it differentiate a negative symbol from a subtraction symbol, like how calculators handle it?

calculate [-2 - 4]::operators reporter

calculate [-2 |- 4]::operators reporter

AliMASTER430258 wrote:

Easy. you use these: | .
Ex.

calculate [-2 |- 4]::operators reporter

([abs v] of ())

LaughabIe wrote:

i have mixed opinions on this… on one hand, yeah! organized code is always a good thing. i don’t like scrolling through a massive operator block trying to fix the issue that lies within it. but are massive operators a problem that really needs a new solution? rarely will you actually have to deal with this, and when you do it’s entirely possible to optimize it so it isn’t nearly as messy.

you also have to consider how this would even calculate math equations very well. how would it differentiate a negative symbol from a subtraction symbol, like how calculators handle it?

calculate [-2 - 4]::operators reporter