Suggestion for the if <> then block (25+ support, 3 semi, 1 no)

BlockWare

Support, it is in every decent programming language besides Scratch.
Just make sure to end with “else”

Last edited by BlockWare (March 11, 2016 22:59:33)

Sigton's Shop ||| Athena RP ||| Ultra Player Collaboration ||| Board Games Inc.
The Forum Factory ||| BW Homework Help ||| The Randomizer
Join Root Productions! Now looking for artists, sound designers, managers, and more!
“If you think my jokes are too cheesy, you might be… LAUGHTOSE INTOLERANT!”
“My German friend is apparently a player. I asked him if he had a girlfriend and he said ‘Nine’!”

pianogirl84

Support! This would be a great block to have!

if you're seeing this bc you're reading one of my old posts, i'm so sorry

i’m also @holoitsnatalie and @aesthetes on here

alexphan

Support; this would save a LOT of lag.

massazza

I think: in many cases, a chain of if blocks is enough. The only difference between this and your block is that if-block chains may have multiple of the if blocks run. So, semi-support.

RoboticAnimations

ooOOOOOOhh! I like this block!

I'm not pessimistic,
I'm just realistic.

say [Please send help.] for (99) secs

helloandgoodbye9

alexphan wrote:
Support; this would save a LOT of lag.

How would this fix lag?
Dont see the need, so no support.

Last edited by kaj (Tomorrow 25:61:61) ͪͪͪͪͪͪͪͪͪͪ ͣͣͣͣ ͯͯͯͯYes, its above the line)

Jonathan50

Support! But maybe rather than needing to right-click it could be sort of variadic, like:

Not yet a Knight of the Mu Calculus.

f1lip

Support

That idea could be a good way to code scorekeepers. For example without that you would have to do scripts like this. (Which don't work, trust me.) I am using the same example as the first post but without the suggestion it would be like this.

when green flag clicked
if <(score) = [10]> then 
say [Not bad.] for (2) secs  
end


when green flag clicked
if <(score) = [100 ]> then
say [Perfect score!] for (2) secs
end

And so on.

Last edited by f1lip (May 8, 2016 12:37:24)

alexphan

helloandgoodbye9 wrote:
alexphan wrote:
Support; this would save a LOT of lag.
How would this fix lag?

Because this would cause lag:

if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else

You probably just have a beefy computer

Last edited by alexphan (May 8, 2016 12:44:38)

Alberknyis

alexphan wrote:
helloandgoodbye9 wrote:
alexphan wrote:
Support; this would save a LOT of lag.
How would this fix lag?
Because this would cause lag:

[Insert really long if-else spammation here]

You probably just have a beefy computer

It would save a LOT of lag, but only if someone was crazy enough to ever need 27 nested if-else statements. All that's happening is a solution to a problem that doesn't really happen.

stop [all v] ::stack

helloandgoodbye9

alexphan wrote:

helloandgoodbye9 wrote:
alexphan wrote:
Support; this would save a LOT of lag.
How would this fix lag?

Because this would cause lag:

if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else

You probably just have a beefy computer

It would also take a lot of lag to use your solution.

Alberknyis wrote:
alexphan wrote:
helloandgoodbye9 wrote:
alexphan wrote:
Support; this would save a LOT of lag.
How would this fix lag?
Because this would cause lag:

[Insert really long if-else spammation here]

You probably just have a beefy computer

It would save a LOT of lag, but only if someone was crazy enough to ever need 27 nested if-else statements. All that's happening is a solution to a problem that doesn't really happen.

^^^

Jonathan50 wrote:
Support! But maybe rather than needing to right-click it could be sort of variadic, like:

I dont support OP, but I'll support this, as it doesn't require left-clicking.

Last edited by kaj (Tomorrow 25:61:61) ͪͪͪͪͪͪͪͪͪͪ ͣͣͣͣ ͯͯͯͯYes, its above the line)

f1lip

helloandgoodbye9 wrote:
alexphan wrote:
helloandgoodbye9 wrote:
alexphan wrote:
Support; this would save a LOT of lag.
How would this fix lag?
Because this would cause lag:
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
if <> then
    
else
You probably just have a beefy computer
It would also take a lot of lag to use your solution.
Alberknyis wrote:
alexphan wrote:
helloandgoodbye9 wrote:
alexphan wrote:
Support; this would save a LOT of lag.
How would this fix lag?
Because this would cause lag:

[Insert really long if-else spammation here]

You probably just have a beefy computer

It would save a LOT of lag, but only if someone was crazy enough to ever need 27 nested if-else statements. All that's happening is a solution to a problem that doesn't really happen.
^^^
Jonathan50 wrote:
Support! But maybe rather than needing to right-click it could be sort of variadic, like:
I dont support OP, but I'll support this, as it doesn't require left-clicking.

The spam part is what i agree with so some support for a limit.

A-no-meep

Support!

Last edited by A-no-meep (May 9, 2016 16:50:45)

[ v]

A dropdown to nowhere

Greenduck54

Support

I used to make stuff on here, now i just come on when i'm bored, don't expect anything from me now.
Last edited by Greenduck54 (Jan. 1, 2020 00:00:00)
oh no, the joke is dead because that time is no longer in the future :I
Last edited by Greenduck54 (Apr. 20, 2069 00:00:00)
that's better
;

Paddle2See

It looks like this is a duplicate topic of this one over here so I'll close it to keep the conversation all in one place.

Please use the existing topic in the link above.

Scratch Team Member, kayak and pickleball enthusiast, cat caregiver.

This is my forum signature! On a forum post, it is okay for Scratchers to advertise in their forum signature. The signature is the stuff that shows up below the horizontal line on the post. It will show up on every post I make.
(credit to Za-Chary)

;

Discuss Scratch