switch / case block

FiveCubed

This block would be the alternative to 20 if blocks. You would input a variable, somethings the variable could be, and if it equals one of those, then it will run the code underneath. And if none of these activate, the default one at the bottom activates. like this,

when green flag clicked
if <(color) = [green]> then
    do something
end
if <(color) = [red]> then
    do something
end
if <(color) = [blue]> then
    do something
end
if <(color) = [orange]> then
    do something
end
if <not <<<<green> or <red>> or <blue>> or <orange>>> then
    do something default
end

but in one block.

gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890

Will a break statement be necessary, or would Scratch automatically leave the switch statement once the value's corresponding statements are executed? I'm afraid that needing a break statement to exit an option would confuse beginners, and I don't understand the design and reasoning behind it myself.

FiveCubed

Chibi-Matoran wrote:
Will a break statement be necessary, or would Scratch automatically leave the switch statement once the value's corresponding statements are executed? I'm afraid that needing a break statement to exit an option would confuse beginners, and I don't understand the design and reasoning behind it myself.

No, it wouldn't be necessary at all to have a break statement. Scratch can just have it act like a bunch of if statements put together. The reasoning behind this is that I tend to make scratch lag with the large amounts of code I make it render. This would reduce lag and be convenient.

Sheep_tester

I believe that this isn't exactly the workaround for the switch statement:

FiveCubed wrote:

when green flag clicked
if <(color) = [green]> then
    do something
end
if <(color) = [red]> then
    do something
end
if <(color) = [blue]> then
    do something
end
if <(color) = [orange]> then
    do something
end
if <not <<<<green> or <red>> or <blue>> or <orange>>> then
    do something default
end

because if I did something such as

if <(color) = [blue]> then
    set [color v] to [orange]
end
if <(color) = [orange]> then
    set [color v] to [purple]
end
if <not<<(color) = [blue]>or<(color) = [orange]>> then
    set [color v] to [blue]
end

all the if blocks would run because the variable “color” is being changed.

But yeah, support.

gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890

Sheep_tester wrote:
I believe that this isn't exactly the workaround for the switch statement:
-snip-
because if I did something such as
if <(color) = [blue]> then
    set [color v] to [orange]
end
if <(color) = [orange]> then
    set [color v] to [purple]
end
if <not<<(color) = [blue]>or<(color) = [orange]>> then
    set [color v] to [blue]
end
all the if blocks would run because the variable “color” is being changed.

But yeah, support.

FiveCubed's workaround is correct, because the switch construct needs a break statement or else it will continue to the next case.

public class test {
	public static void main(String[] args) {
		int n = 0;
		switch (n)
		{
		case 0:
			n = 1;
		case 1:
			System.out.println(n);
		}
	}
}

This code will print the number one.

For a workaround for a switch statement with break statements, use nested if-else statements instead.

MrFluffyPenguins

just ignore this post i made, move along, nothing to see here

Last edited by MrFluffyPenguins (Sept. 10, 2020 14:25:28)

Kami-ko

support, nested if/else/if/else statements can get pretty annoying and it's not very optimal

sathvikrias

BUMP!

PGBFLITE6373

sathvikrias wrote:
BUMP!

I'm startig to think your @topicbumper

fdreerf

PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
sathvikrias wrote:
BUMP!
I'm startig to think your @topicbumper

You are thinking wrong then.

This block is a little clunky to make, but I tried my best:

switch (n) {
case (0) {
... ::list
} case (1) {
... ::events
} case (2) {
... ::variables
} case (3) {
... ::control
} case (4) {
... ::operators
} @delInput @addInput ::control
} ::control

PGBFLITE6373

fdreerf wrote:
PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
sathvikrias wrote:
BUMP!
I'm startig to think your @topicbumper
You are thinking wrong then.

No i think its there alt also imma get back on topic
Thank god you closed your scratchblock tags

PkmnQ

PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
fdreerf wrote:
PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
sathvikrias wrote:
BUMP!
I'm startig to think your @topicbumper
You are thinking wrong then.
No i think its there alt also imma get back on topic
Thank god you closed your scratchblock tags

It's literally fdreerf's alt.

Anyway, it would be weird, but if they manage to implement it sensibly somehow, then support.

PGBFLITE6373

PkmnQ wrote:
PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
fdreerf wrote:
PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
sathvikrias wrote:
BUMP!
I'm startig to think your @topicbumper
You are thinking wrong then.
No i think its there alt also imma get back on topic
Thank god you closed your scratchblock tags
It's literally fdreerf's alt.

Anyway, it would be weird, but if they manage to implement it sensibly somehow, then support.

imma make an alt and reply

sathvikrias

PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
No i think its there alt

no i'm not topicbumper's alt .
this suggestion would need varadic inputs, aka @addInput and @delInput in scratchblocks.

PGBFLITE6373

sathvikrias wrote:
PGBFLITE6373 wrote:
No i think its there alt
no i'm not topicbumper's alt .
this suggestion would need varadic inputs, aka @addInput and @delInput in scratchblocks.

yes i know that your not, but you seem like it. other then that support has less clutter

awesome_guy6856

OH MY GOD PLEASE YES

SatyrnWasTaken

PLEASE add this.

plqaokwsijeduhrfyg

awesome_guy6856 wrote:
OH MY GOD PLEASE YES

SatyrnWasTaken wrote:
PLEASE add this.

Please say why you support.

plqaokwsijeduhrfyg

So it would be something like this:

Support. Really annoying when you have to add 40 if blocks.
Yes I used tynker for this don’t hurt me.

Last edited by plqaokwsijeduhrfyg (April 27, 2021 03:58:46)

k0d3rrr

I'll help bring this topic up to be helpful.

Honestly, I would still use the classic “if <> then, else” block for this, but this would help save blocks in projects.
However, I wouldn't want this to replace the “if <> then, else” block if this was implemented.

Discuss Scratch