Easier way of combining "Join", "And" and "Or" blocks.

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-

Bump bump bumppppp!

New!

fdreerf

scratchastroLOL wrote:
anyways, what about beginners? they can find it confusing.

How is this confusing and

(join [] (join [] (join [] (join [] (join [] [])))))
(join (letter (1) of [world]) (join (letter (2) of [world]) (join (letter (3) of [world]) (letter (4) of [world])))
<<[ v] contains [thing] ?> and <<[ v] contains [thing] ?> and <[ v] contains [thing] ?>>>

Quick question: would the multiple inputs for the contains block work like the or block (return true if any of the inputs are in the list) or the and block (return true only if all the inputs are in the list)?

Hyped for MS-DOS 11.0

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-

fdreerf wrote:
Quick question: would the multiple inputs for the contains block work like the or block (return true if any of the inputs are in the list) or the and block (return true only if all the inputs are in the list)?

It would only return if all of them were because if you are adding that you are most likely searching for content in something.

New!

gosoccerboy5

LandonHarter wrote:

join [foo] [bar] [baz] @delInput@addInput :: operators reporter
letters (1) (2) (3) @delInput@addInput of [world] :: operators reporter
[haystack] contains [needle] or [key] or [turkey] @delInput@addInput :: operators boolean

Better concept art

I like the mockup.
I guess it's "Haystack contains needle, and turkey", ok. Alternatively you could use a small dropdown menu.

[haystack] contains [all v] of[needle], [key], [turkey]?@delInput@addInput :: operators boolean

Anyways this seems like a great idea. No more huge clunky boolean combinations

Last edited by gosoccerboy5 (Oct. 8, 2020 14:08:29)

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-

gosoccerboy5 wrote:
LandonHarter wrote:
join [foo] [bar] [baz] @delInput@addInput :: operators reporter
letters (1) (2) (3) @delInput@addInput of [world] :: operators reporter
[haystack] contains [needle] or [key] or [turkey] @delInput@addInput :: operators boolean
Better concept art
I like the mockup, but…

the “haystack contains” part, does it say "haystack contains needle, or turkey“?
or does it say ”Haystack contains needle, and turkey“? There's a bit of room for ambiguity on that one. The other ones seem fine.

Edit: okay, I guess it's ”Haystack contains needle, and turkey", ok never mind

Anyways this seems like a great idea. No more huge clunky boolean combinations

How about

[haystack] contains [needle], [key] [or v] [turkey] @delInput@addInput :: operators boolean // can be OR or AND

New!

gosoccerboy5

I added that to my post

fdreerf

You can also do the same thing with commutative operations:

(() + () + () @delInput@addInput ::operators)
(() * () * () @delInput@addInput ::operators)

equalities & inequalities:

<[] = [] = [] = [] @delInput@addInput ::operators>
<[] > [] > [] > [] @delInput@addInput ::operators>
<[] < [] < [] < [] @delInput@addInput ::operators>

and boolean operations:

<<> and <> and <> @delInput@addInput ::operators>
<<> or <> or <> @delInput@addInput ::operators>

I'm not sure if it should work with subtraction and division, as order matters and require parentheses (or separate blocks) to be easily read.

Last edited by fdreerf (Oct. 8, 2020 14:21:27)

Hyped for MS-DOS 11.0

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-

fdreerf wrote:
You can also do the same thing with commutative operations:
(() + () + () @delInput@addInput ::operators)
(() * () * () @delInput@addInput ::operators)
equalities:
<[] = [] = [] = [] @delInput@addInput ::operators>
and boolean operations:
<<> and <> and <> @delInput@addInput ::operators>
<<> or <> or <> @delInput@addInput ::operators>
I'm not sure if it should work with subtraction and division, as order matters and require parentheses (or separate blocks) to be easily read.

Interesting!

New!

gosoccerboy5

Wow dumb me saying dumb things

Last edited by gosoccerboy5 (Jan. 22, 2021 18:51:24)

fdreerf

gosoccerboy5 wrote:
Hm.. I guess this leads to a bit of a mess in the operators section.. idk

It's just two extra buttons to pre-existing blocks to add an input. There won't be any new blocks.

Hyped for MS-DOS 11.0

gosoccerboy5

I guess. Extreme support!

Last edited by gosoccerboy5 (Oct. 8, 2020 14:38:31)

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p- wrote:
bump

New!

MeIzAwezomeDede

scratchastroLOL wrote:
Zelfen wrote:
Nice idea, +1 with you there.
and why?

anyways, what about beginners? they can find it confusing.

everything is confusing to a beginner.
custom blocks can be overwhelming, yet they exist.
pen can be overwhelming too, whaddya know-

Nothing to see here

PkmnQ

Not sure if the contains block should have it, but support. I think the if-else block should have it.

if <> then {

} else if <> then {

} else {

} @delInput@addInput :: control

Also, these scratchblocks are scratch 2.0 styled, so I think we might need a mockup for scratch 3.

Last edited by PkmnQ (Oct. 21, 2020 00:16:53)

This is an account that exists.

Here, have a useful link:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary

MeIzAwezomeDede

PkmnQ wrote:
Not sure if the contains block should have it, but support. I think the if-else block should have it.
if <> then {

} else if <> then {

} else {

} @delInput@addInput :: control
Also, these scratchblocks are scratch 2.0 styled, so I think we might need a mockup for scratch 3.

That block right there. I need it in my life.

And these other blocks too (as I’ve stated lol)

Nothing to see here

IndianRuby718

LandonHarter wrote:

join [foo] [bar] [baz] @delInput@addInput :: operators reporter
letters (1) (2) (3) @delInput@addInput of [world] :: operators reporter
[haystack] contains [needle] or [key] or [turkey] @delInput@addInput :: operators boolean

instead of the last two I think you should have

(( ), ( ), and ( ) @delInput @addInput :: operators) 
(( ), ( ), or ( ) @delInput @addInput :: operators)

That way you can do this:

(letter (( ), ( ), and ( ) @delInput @addInput :: operators) of [world]) 
<[list v] contains (( ), ( ), or ( ) @delInput @addInput :: operators)?>

And I don't know whether it should be implemented with buttons or options in the right-click menu. Buttons would be more efficient, but how would they look on the actual block… making “buttons” with the bbc scratchblocks doesn't really show how it would look in design. I guess that choice is up to the ST :P
Other than that, I support!

PkmnQ wrote:
I think the if-else block should have it.
if <> then {
} else if <> then {
} else {
} @delInput@addInput :: control

yup. both this and my just-created topic (XP) are subtopics of this… so maybe they should both be closed? [This would be a good question to answer in the stickies…]
100th Post!!!

So… I didn't update my signature for over a year XP But… I left the forums, and I'm not coming back anytime soon
(and I'm not updating my signature)

Both stickied Suggestions Directories currently have 138 replies.
Only fdreerf can break the equilibrium.

________________

Za-chary wrote:
I get more frustrated with people telling me about “mass reporting” than I do about “mass reporting” itself.

source
good luck digging up the original reply in the comments
ctrl+f exists

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/6961734/

Bug with the color effect I would really like to see fixed

EEEEEEE   DDDDDD    IIIIIIII  TTTTTTTT           NNN    NN     OOOOO
EE        DD    DD     II        TT     ::       NNNN   NN   OO     OO
EEEEEEE   DD    DD     II        TT              NN NN  NN   OO     OO 
EE        DD    DD     II        TT     ::       NN  NN NN   OO     OO
EE        DD    DD     II        TT              NN   NNNN   OO     OO
EEEEEEE   DDDDDD    IIIIIIII     TT              NN    NNN     OOOOO

Hand-done.

< :: extension>
< :: custom-arg>
< :: motion>

Don't click this link…

PkmnQ

discussion about an entirely different thing

Last edited by PkmnQ (May 9, 2021 11:58:49)

This is an account that exists.

Here, have a useful link:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary

PkmnQ

Constructive bump

IndianRuby718 wrote:
yup. both this and my just-created topic (XP) are subtopics of this… so maybe they should both be closed?

The first has a good amount of discussion on it, so it should be merged with this one

Last edited by PkmnQ (Nov. 11, 2020 00:59:54)

This is an account that exists.

Here, have a useful link:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary

IndianRuby718

PkmnQ wrote:
IndianRuby718 wrote:
yup. both this and my just-created topic (XP) are subtopics of this… so maybe they should both be closed?
The first has a good amount of discussion on it, so it should be merged with this one

I don't think so, because if the two topics get merged, then all the discussion would be about else-if… even if the discussion turns back to focusing on all the blocks mentioned, there's just going to be a huge chunk of else-if discussion :P If anything, the else-if one should be closed, and the link would be mentioned in the OP for reference, but that's still a lot of discussion. I think both should stay open and separate.
anyway, I've closed my topic now :P so

So… I didn't update my signature for over a year XP But… I left the forums, and I'm not coming back anytime soon
(and I'm not updating my signature)

Both stickied Suggestions Directories currently have 138 replies.
Only fdreerf can break the equilibrium.

________________

Za-chary wrote:
I get more frustrated with people telling me about “mass reporting” than I do about “mass reporting” itself.

source
good luck digging up the original reply in the comments
ctrl+f exists

https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/post/6961734/

Bug with the color effect I would really like to see fixed

EEEEEEE   DDDDDD    IIIIIIII  TTTTTTTT           NNN    NN     OOOOO
EE        DD    DD     II        TT     ::       NNNN   NN   OO     OO
EEEEEEE   DD    DD     II        TT              NN NN  NN   OO     OO 
EE        DD    DD     II        TT     ::       NN  NN NN   OO     OO
EE        DD    DD     II        TT              NN   NNNN   OO     OO
EEEEEEE   DDDDDD    IIIIIIII     TT              NN    NNN     OOOOO

Hand-done.

< :: extension>
< :: custom-arg>
< :: motion>

Don't click this link…

panda-wat

scratchastroLOL wrote:
anyways, what about beginners? they can find it confusing.

We have some blocks which aren't for beginners. how does that change anything?

My browser/operating system: Microsoft BOB 1.0, gateway 2000 edition

Discuss Scratch