Zack_39450 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

ihavenocluewhythisis wrote:

switch costume to [previous costume v] // make a costume called previous costume, set the block to it and delete the costume. easy workaround.

no support

Why should there have to be a workaround at all when the functionality is obviously built into Scratch itself?

If it already exists, why does this topic still exist? They could just add it.

switch costume to ((costume [number v]) - (1))

// Or

switch costume to (join [previous costume] [])

50_scratch_tabs wrote:

No support.

switch costume to ((costume [number v]) - (1))

// Or

switch costume to (join [previous costume] [])

Or any of the other many workarounds.

The workarounds are easy, therefore it doesn't need to be added.

(although I believe this was in 2.0 but removed, so the ST thinks it's not necessary.)

QueenKyttySparkle wrote:

What's weirder is they have a next backdrop block but you can also use a dropdown???
Also, Scratch actually implemented some of the code too. If you name a costume to “previous costume”, select it in the “switch costume to” dropdown, delete the block and backpack it, you have a previous costume block that actually works.

Malthetalthee wrote:

Im not sure if this already is here, but I would love a block called previous costume.

lunaluvgood wrote:

theamazingblob wrote:

Also, they should have a next/previous backdrop block. I know they have that in the dropdown for the switch backdrop to ______ block, but seems a little inconsistent with the costume blocks.

So why don't they make a block that says "Switch to ?

CosmicHamster wrote:

Catgirl555 wrote:

CosmicHamster wrote:

No support. The workaround only needs 3 blocks, which is really simple.

switch costume to <(costume #) - (1)>

Just because it has a scary operator block in it does not mean it is hard. In my opinion, the work around should be very easy to remember. But if the

switch backdrop to [ v]

block has “previous backdrop” and “next backdrop” as some of the options, then I suppose that it could be an option for the

switch costume to [ v]

block, too. But I still think that the work around is easy.

I don't think operators are scary.

I know, but some people when they start Scratch think that operators are complicated, so I was referring to them.

[abs v] of ()

pesto_toons wrote:

There are too many blocks. When 4.0 releases there should be some added capabilities for 3d and reduced lag, but they should remove quite a few blocks that can be replicated by other blocks. If someone wants to learn to code on scratch then they should be willing to do a quick search to find out how to go to the previous costume. If scratch is holding your hand through the whole process, then you will gain nothing from using this website, because it will not teach any real skills. If they keep adding more and more blocks at some point there will just be a “Make game” block /j

EndlessArtist wrote:

I totally agree!

switch costume to ((costume [number v]) - (1))

NoxSpooth wrote:

Just do this:

define previous costume
switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

define previous // run without screen refresh
repeat ((number of costumes) - (1))
next costume
end

unnor wrote:

NoxSpooth wrote:

Just do this:

define previous costume
switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

that does not work

Cool_kid092 wrote:

workarounds

switch costume to ((costume [number v]) - (1))