Paddle2See wrote:

Basically, an in-line if-then-else construct. Handy, certainly, but nothing that can't be done fairly well with other blocks. For instance, on your last example, you could do the same thing with this:

if <(pick random (1) to (2)) = [1]> then
set [value v] to [1]
else
set [value v] to [-1] 
end

Perhaps even more easily understood than the in-line version.

ajskateboarder wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

medians wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

Isn’t that just

if <> then 

else

end

It is basically this, but this is easier since you do not have to create a result variable or anything, and can fit in reporter inputs (also, this has been used in other places too):

if <bool::grey> then
set [result v] to (first result::grey)
else
set [result v] to (second result::grey)
end

Is there a clear benefit to fitting in Boolean inputs? In what situation would it be needed? /gen

Yes because code can be made more concise (usually) while still being readable (in a lot of cases)

Paddle2See wrote:

Basically, an in-line if-then-else construct. Handy, certainly, but nothing that can't be done fairly well with other blocks. For instance, on your last example, you could do the same thing with this:

if <(pick random (1) to (2)) = [1]> then
set [value v] to [1]
else
set [value v] to [-1] 
end

Perhaps even more easily understood than the in-line version.

leidymateo wrote:

if <[Block] = [E Block]> then 

  The If <> then, else block looks like a E block.

else
say [this looks like double c block.]
end

if <(a)>(b)> then 
return (a) :: custom
else
return (b) :: custom
end

if <(a)>(b)> then (a) else (b) :: operators reporter

fhqhwgads9sb wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

Basically, an in-line if-then-else construct. Handy, certainly, but nothing that can't be done fairly well with other blocks. For instance, on your last example, you could do the same thing with this:

if <(pick random (1) to (2)) = [1]> then
set [value v] to [1]
else
set [value v] to [-1] 
end

Perhaps even more easily understood than the in-line version.

What? Do you want big chungus in your code? No, what are you even thinking!?

PH-zero wrote:

Duplikate, I suggested the same a while ago:
http://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/33995/?page=1#post-286812

And support of course

if <> [] else []::operators reporter

define if <condition> (text1) else (text2)
if <condition> then
    set [value v] to (text1)
else
    set [value v] to (text2)
end

20btheilmanngohr wrote:

So wait, what's the problem with

when green flag clicked
ask [Are you cool?] and wait
if <> then
say [Good!] for (2) secs    
else
say [What!?] for (2) secs
end

You didn't say anything about how the boolean could be useful, you just said how it works and what it does. Unless there are some pros or cons listed, I think I'll stick to -1

medians wrote: