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

panda-wat

there's an easy workaround which can be used to make up for these:

(join (join [1] [2]) [3])
<<() contains ()::operators> or <() contains ()::operators>>
(join (letter (1) of [world]) (letter (2) of [world])
if <> then 
else
if <> then 
else
end
end

…and so on and so on and so on, with every single possible add on to the blocks mentioned here.

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

SquirreIstar

panda-wat wrote:
there's an easy workaround which can be used to make up for these:
(join (join [1] [2]) [3])
<<() contains ()::operators> or <() contains ()::operators>>
(join (letter (1) of [world]) (letter (2) of [world])
if <> then 
else
if <> then 
else
end
end
…and so on and so on and so on, with every single possible add on to the blocks mentioned here.

The whole entire point of this suggestion is to remove the need to use an excessive amount of blocks to do these functions.

Moved to @Alphysse

PkmnQ

panda-wat wrote:
there's an easy workaround which can be used to make up for these:
(join (join [1] [2]) [3])
<<() contains ()::operators> or <() contains ()::operators>>
(join (letter (1) of [world]) (letter (2) of [world])
if <> then 
else
if <> then 
else
end
end
…and so on and so on and so on, with every single possible add on to the blocks mentioned here.

Ah yes, because it's not like this suggestion was meant to replace that, so that it wouldn't be unnecessarily huge.

Last edited by PkmnQ (Nov. 13, 2020 06:20:39)

This is an account that exists.

Here, have a useful link:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary

Tunde123

fdreerf wrote:
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)?

Wouldn't that look confusing?

This is a SIGNATURE. This is seperate from a normal post ^
Forum Posts: 2600+/3000
Highlight + Shift + Down Arrow = To see whole signature.

Want to friend me on Roblox? My username is BaconvsRoblox121314 if you want to friend me!

–v More Information v–

New Scratchers - Introduce yourself here!

Questions about Scratch - Ask questions related to scratch here!

Help with Scripts - get/provide help here!

Suggestions - Suggest blocks, features, and more here!

Bugs and Glitches - Report bugs/glitches here!

Last edited by Tunde123 (May 17th, 2022 10:18 AM EST)

Tunde123

SquirreIstar wrote:
panda-wat wrote:
there's an easy workaround which can be used to make up for these:
(join (join [1] [2]) [3])
<<() contains ()::operators> or <() contains ()::operators>>
(join (letter (1) of [world]) (letter (2) of [world])
if <> then 
else
if <> then 
else
end
end
…and so on and so on and so on, with every single possible add on to the blocks mentioned here.
The whole entire point of this suggestion is to remove the need to use an excessive amount of blocks to do these functions.

Exactly.

This is a SIGNATURE. This is seperate from a normal post ^
Forum Posts: 2600+/3000
Highlight + Shift + Down Arrow = To see whole signature.

Want to friend me on Roblox? My username is BaconvsRoblox121314 if you want to friend me!

–v More Information v–

New Scratchers - Introduce yourself here!

Questions about Scratch - Ask questions related to scratch here!

Help with Scripts - get/provide help here!

Suggestions - Suggest blocks, features, and more here!

Bugs and Glitches - Report bugs/glitches here!

Last edited by Tunde123 (May 17th, 2022 10:18 AM EST)

gosoccerboy5

here, take my bump

IndianRuby718

PkmnQ wrote:
IndianRuby718 wrote:
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)?> 
I really wish I had that block, but there are good reasons that's not implemented.
say ([foo], [bar], and [baz] @delInput @addInput :: operators) // (same with "or") 
(item ([foo], [bar], and [baz] @delInput @addInput :: operators) of [list v] :: list) // this one can actually work (see below) 
But if you manage to address that, it's gonna be even more helpful than you think.
<[] = ([foo], [bar], or [baz] @delInput @addInput :: operators)>

yup, I knew there would be problems. I don't have a solution to that one yet, other than maybe pulling up “NaN” for reporters/booleans, or not doing anything/having any effect for others. But for now:

2. this may sometimes work, for example if you put this:

<[list v] contains (item ([a], [b], and [c] @delInput @addInput :: operators) of [list2 v]) ?> // or: 
<[variable] contains (item ([a] or [c] @delInput @addInput :: operators) of [list v]) ? :: operators>

3. this could also work with “and” in equations with multiple solutions.

ask [Enter a value so the solutions of "|x|+__=12" are 7 and -7.] and wait 
if <([abs v] of ((12) - (answer))) = ((7) and (-7) @delInput @addInput :: operators)> then // I think I did that wrong... 
change [# correct v] by (1) 
end

Greater/less than would also be fine.

<(50) > ((40) or (55) @delInput @addInput :: operators)> // true 
<(50) > ((40) and (55) @delInput @addInput :: operators)> // false

and more:

<key ([ ], [ ], and [ ] @delInput @addInput :: operators) pressed?>

and this suggestion would also become possible, with the help of mine, and/or this one-

hide variable ([var1], [var2], and [var3] @delInput @addInput :: operators) // another problem with "or" 
set ([var1], [var2], and [var3] @delInput @addInput :: operators) to [0] // same here, same for the other two

oh and Bump

Last edited by IndianRuby718 (Dec. 9, 2020 01:48:28)

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 11:59:10)

This is an account that exists.

Here, have a useful link:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary

-InsanityPlays-

Semi-support as it should be an experimental block and it already exists in Snap.

Welcome to my signature!
I've moved accounts. Anyway, did this post help you? Go follow me on my new account!
Today's Links: Scratch 4.0 Leaked Information, Astronomical - The Third, The Forum Community
follow me on scratch or i am sad, subscribe to my YouTube channel or bad luck for the rest of your life
My Final Shoutout: hekcer because in computer science class, he is the hekcerman
-InsanityPlays- Fan Studio! (closed) | Astronomical - The Third | Best of -InsanityPlays- 2020
my channel, my website, ctrl+shift+down for more STUFF

2020's Advent Collection:

more STUFF

mysterious-neutron

EXTREME support!!!!!! It will help me a lot as in many of my complicated games I have really large blocks and this block can covert it into a single block

Last edited by kaj (Tomorrow 00:00:00)

MartianSoil

Support. Would make the editor a lot less confusing. I am often making something and I have to do this:

(join [(letter (1) of (foo))] [(letter (2) of (foo))])

And then repeat that so many times. It often leads to me barely being able to select the outermost block.

(cmd/ctrl)(shift) down to see full signature (Or if you have that one browser extension I am forbidden to name, you can scroll down I guess…

Currently coding mods for Stardew Valley, making an indie game in Unity, and might be making one in Godot.

But many a workmen will tell you that when the moon is full, they h̛̦̪̭́̈a͖͚̔̓v̘̲͓̈̌̚e ̻̟̘͒͂̚s̝̳̪͛͆͘ḛ̭̞̊̌̃e̫̼̻͚̦͑͊̄̆̄n̤͔͎̽́̿ the… (If you get the reference free clout)

Support Better Custom Blocks please.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944 That is all I know

Pi is my favorite number if you somehow haven’t guessed.

Go here for the most ironic suggestion ever. (It is rejected which is good)

I was

Generation 381: the first time you see this copy and paste it on top of your sig in the scratch forums and increase generation by 1. Social experiment.

on my old account.

I guess I am generation 3 on this account though

(pi :: operators

is a rejected feature and can be created with

((355) / (113))

IndianRuby718

PkmnQ wrote:
IndianRuby718 wrote:
2. this may sometimes work, for example if you put this:
<[list v] contains (item ([a], [b], and [c] @delInput @addInput :: operators) of [list2 v]) ?> // or: 
<[variable] contains (item ([a] or [c] @delInput @addInput :: operators) of [list v]) ? :: operators> 
Then you'd need to deal with this again:
say (item ([1], [2], and [3] @delInput @addInput :: operators) of [list v] :: list)
But that would probably have the same solution as the and block, and I think it'll just have an empty output.

I think I have a solution for the ones that don't directly make sense… for “and”, it would report all the values as a string, like a list reports. So

say ([item1], [item2], [item3], and [item4] @delInput @addInput :: operators)

Would say “item1 item2 item3 item4”, the same as if you have a list with these four items in it and put the list reporter into the say block.
And “or” could report a random item out of the above options, similar to the “pick random” reporter, or "item [any] of list":

(item (join [any] []) of [list v])

It at least makes sense for “and”, but I'm not sure about “or”, since it wouldn't be randomly chosen in the times when it's properly used. After all the reporter needs to report something even when not in use with anything else. An empty output probably wouldn't make sense (and NaN would make even less sense, since it's not just for numbers- oops-) But at least we now have a working “and” block :P (I think)

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 11:59:23)

This is an account that exists.

Here, have a useful link:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary

gosoccerboy5

I do say.. this is worthy of a BUMP

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

I need to clear something up. These:

( (), () [and v] () :: operators) 
( (), () [or v] () :: operators)

Aren't what I'm suggesting. These are to confusing, and I feel bad letting the people in this topic discuss how these would work. The and block would be this:

(join (), () , (),  @delInput @addInput :: operators)

and the or block wouldn't exist. Instead, you could add to such blocks like:

<[thing] contains [thing] , [thing2] , [thing3] [or v] [thing4] ? @delInput @addInput :: operators>

that or, would also have the ability to be an and, which the and would require all of the inputs to be in the string to be true, but the or would require only one of the inputs to be in the string.

New!

gosoccerboy5

I've been with that the whole time.. maybe it was other people who were suggesting the first two.

gosoccerboy5

free bumpp0pppp

ShyGamer16-alt

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

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

Stop right there!
Suggestions don't get rejected because they're “too complex” for new scratchers. Take this block for example:

([axis v] of (9))

I didn't know what this block was for until most recently. If somebody suggested it, someone would probably say “No support!! It's too complex 4 new scratchers!” but it's still in Scratch.

Before making posts like these please think of similar blocks that have actually been implemented.

PkmnQ

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p- wrote:
I need to clear something up. These:
( (), () [and v] () :: operators) 
( (), () [or v] () :: operators)
Aren't what I'm suggesting. These are to confusing, and I feel bad letting the people in this topic discuss how these would work.

Actually, I did think a new topic should be made for those, but I wasn't sure if it'd be closed as a dupe.

This is an account that exists.

Here, have a useful link:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary

NanoPIex

No support. Adding a block or two doesn`t hurt you.

L

Discuss Scratch