{move (1) steps} :: grey :: reporter

also add a run block for these ring blocks

example

set [code v] to ({move (5) steps} :: grey :: reporter)
run (code) :: control //this would move 5 steps

anyone here

Why would you want to do this when you have normal code.

Dragonmyflesh wrote:

Why would you want to do this when you have normal code.

Because you can do

set [some blocks v] to ({move (10) steps} :: grey ring)
set [some blocks v] to (join (some blocks) [(insert some more blocks here)])
run (some blocks) :: control

Which is currently impossible to do, and unlike other places that can dynamically run code like this, it doesn't run into security issues.

BigNate469 wrote:

Dragonmyflesh wrote:

Why would you want to do this when you have normal code.

Because you can do

set [some blocks v] to ({move (10) steps} :: grey ring)
set [some blocks v] to (join (some blocks) [(insert some more blocks here)])
run (some blocks) :: control

Which is currently impossible to do, and unlike other places that can dynamically run code like this, it doesn't run into security issues.

Just use messages.

Dragonmyflesh wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

snip

Just use messages.

If you want to do that and be able to programmatically build any script, you need hundreds of messages (one for every block), not to mention it being slow (messages have fairly specific rules about when they execute in relation to when the screen is updated) and hard to use.

Meanwhile, with this, you can essentially just build a script all at once and execute it quickly.

It would also make compiling scripts to Scratch generated in a project possible.

How do you add inputs?

TheCreatorOfUnTV wrote:

How do you add inputs?

Maybe by setting variables named after keyboard buttons to true/false based on if the button is being pressed. But it could probably be a bit slow.

The ring block and run code block is originally from Snap, for anyone that doesn't know.

No support


As much as I LOVE snap, they’re different for a reason.
What this would allow you to do is no different than that of an if else statement

While I do see the value and potental of brining rings to scratch. They just seem entirely out of scope

I think custom variable blocks (That was already suggested by the way) would be much better since they are easier
to understand. Ring blocks will lead to more confusion rather than being helpful for new scratchers.
I really like this suggestion but I think it will just cause too much confusion for it to be a good implementation.

if yall want this just use Snap!

bubgamer072 wrote:

if yall want this just use Snap!

As has been mentioned in other topics, saying "just use [link to external program(s)" isn't a usually good workaround, because not everyone can always access them or wants to use them.

That said, considering Snap! is a project of a university, and as a result, isn't blocked much anywhere, and is now able to be run anywhere because it's no longer a Scratch 1.4 mod, it doesn't really have these issues.

based on this topic i see no reason why can't use this

define give me scratch

han614698 wrote:

based on this topic i see no reason why can't use this

define give me scratch

trust me, rings are much much much much more than just custom blocks. for example:

when I receive [add block v]
ask [which block do you want to add?] and wait
if <(answer) = [move forwards]> then   
set [script v] to (join (script) ({move (10) steps} :: grey ring))
else
...
end

and then, you can do something like this:

when I receive [go v]
run (script) :: control

to allow the user to create and run their own script.

BigNate469 wrote:

Dragonmyflesh wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

snip

Just use messages.

If you want to do that and be able to programmatically build any script, you need hundreds of messages (one for every block), not to mention it being slow (messages have fairly specific rules about when they execute in relation to when the screen is updated) and hard to use.

Meanwhile, with this, you can essentially just build a script all at once and execute it quickly.

It would also make compiling scripts to Scratch generated in a project possible.

If you can do this:

{move (1) steps} :: grey :: reporter

The you can do this:

when I receive [message v]
move (1) steps

It's not that hard.

no i mean i can just do the ring thing, then why is it in snap berkeley edu

TheCreatorOfUnTV
How do you add inputs?

look

{move (#1 :: variables) steps} with inputs (#1 :: variables) :: grey :: reporter

semi support, while this seems to make compiling projects easier and faster, and somewhat prevents clutter, i really just do not see a use case for this outside projects that need compiling and scratch inside of scratch projects. like would something like this work?

when I start as a clone
set [code to run v] to []
if <...::grey> then
set [code to run v] to ((...::grey stack)::extension)
else
set [code to run v] to ((...::grey stack)::extension)
end
run (code to run)::control