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

MeIzAwezomeDede

-deleted because yes-

Last edited by MeIzAwezomeDede (Dec. 14, 2020 13:55:24)

Nothing to see here

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

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

It doesn't hurt me, but it hurts the site and makes project sizes much larger then they need to be.
Also, this isn't just a block or 2, this could shrink this:

(join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join [] [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world])

Into 1 simple block:

(join [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], and [] @delInput @addInput :: operators)

New!

gosoccerboy5

.bump
a .bump file is essentially a .exe file that automatically bumps your topic to the top when you place one in your forum topic. Handle with care.

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

gosoccerboy5 wrote:
.bump
a .bump file is essentially a .exe file that automatically bumps your topic to the top when you place one in your forum topic. Handle with care.

STOP CONVERTING MY FILES!!!!!

New!

gosoccerboy5

bump

Maximouse

No support. Even Snap!, which is designed for more advanced projects, only has this as an extension. I rarely need to, for example, join more than 3 strings together.

Although Snap! 6.0 added hyperblocks, which make it possible to perform an operation on a whole list:

((list [1] [2] [3] @delInput @addInput :: list) + (list [4] [5] [6] @delInput @addInput :: list)) // returns list [5] [7] [9]

This is Maximouse's signature. Learn more about signatures.

ForumHelperNanoPiex

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p- wrote:
NanoPIex wrote:
No support. Adding a block or two doesn`t hurt you.
It doesn't hurt me, but it hurts the site and makes project sizes much larger then they need to be.
Also, this isn't just a block or 2, this could shrink this:
(join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join [] [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world])
Into 1 simple block:
(join [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], and [] @delInput @addInput :: operators)

Well, then you'd have to make all of these blocks for all different sizes just for this, no support, sorry.

Nano Misbehaves At Spa! Nano Gets Grounded At PTA Meting!

HTML_JAVASCRIPT_CSS

I SUPPORT SO MUCH

This would be useful in many cases.

But can you change the looks to this?
Never mind, I found out how to do that.

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

This could be useful if a else if block was added…

if <condition :: custom> then {
code :: custom
} else if <condition :: custom> then {
code :: custom
} else {
code :: custom
} @delInput @addInput:: control

Last edited by HTML_JAVASCRIPT_CSS (Dec. 21, 2020 22:42:21)

Press shift + down arrow to see the rest of my siggy!

Shops I work at and own:

(OwO :: #abc123) // this is my kumquat defender for my siggy
if <(OwO :: #abc123) detects [kumquat v] :: operators> then
operate [attack] (enemy) :: motion
end

HTML_JAVASCRIPT_CSS

[off-topic]

Globe Icon wrote:
My browser / operating system: IPad iOS 12.5, Safari 12.1.2, No Flash version detected

iPad Safari wrote:
This webpage was reloaded because a problem occured on https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/430221/?page=3

HTML_JAVASCRIPT_CSS wrote:
*me getting annoyed by it.*

[/off-topic]

Press shift + down arrow to see the rest of my siggy!

Shops I work at and own:

(OwO :: #abc123) // this is my kumquat defender for my siggy
if <(OwO :: #abc123) detects [kumquat v] :: operators> then
operate [attack] (enemy) :: motion
end

fdreerf

ForumHelperNanoPiex wrote:
Well, then you'd have to make all of these blocks for all different sizes just for this, no support, sorry.

Um, no, you click the button and it adds an additional input. There wouldn't be any new blocks, just changes to existing blocks.

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. The and block would be this:

I strongly disagree with this. There is nothing more confusing and less helpful about this:
<<> and <> and <> and <> >
than:
(join (), (), ()@delInput @addInput ::operators)
In fact, the first one would be more helpful to most as often times I need to check multiple booleans at once rather than join long strings of text. Plus, it keeps all the discussion for pretty much the same idea but for different blocks in one place.
Nevermind, that was for a different block and I agree that those should not be added, but the statement still stands for the arithmetic blocks, comparison blocks, and boolean logic blocks.

Last edited by fdreerf (Dec. 31, 2020 03:08:33)

Hyped for MS-DOS 11.0

the2000

Total support from me. If I have to do the “infinite stack” thing ever again in my lifetime, it will be too soon.

Maximouse wrote:
No support. Even Snap!, which is designed for more advanced projects, only has this as an extension. I rarely need to, for example, join more than 3 strings together.

I have no idea what kind of programming you're doing, I find myself wishing for these at least once a week

Last edited by the2000 (Dec. 31, 2020 03:55:47)

gosoccerboy5

(join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join (join [] [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world]) [world])

(join [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], and [] @delInput @addInput :: operators)

That's why I support. It makes it so much easier to do join chains, boolean chains, addition/multiplication chains, if/else chains, etc.

lm1996

Support! I was making a game (kinda left it) (and are collabing w/ someone) and that would be really useful.

Lm / She/her / D&D DM / April 3rd /

lordibel

p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p- wrote:
I have seen that there are things that need a lot of blocks that could be shortened to 1 block. This would allow more room in the area ad less work required. What I am suggesting is a block we already have but an improvement. there are 3 blocks that can use this improvement and they are
(join [] [world])
(letter [] of [world])
<() contains ()? :: operators>
anyways, these blocks have 2 slots in them. If you want more you have to add more blocks. My idea is to update this into this block:
<() contains () [or v] () @delInput @addInput :: operators>
When you click on the triangle it adds another input. There's also a function in the middle, which holds or or and.
You can do this up to 30 times. This would improve decoding numbers and other things as well. 1 thing would be
when green flag clicked
ask [give me c ordinates ad I will go to that slot! write it like 000 and 000] and wait
go to x: (letters (1) (2) and (3) @delInput @addInput of (answer) :: operators ) y: (letters (9) (10) (11) @delInput @addInput of (answer) :: operators)
This is just a simple example. Let me know if you support, any suggestions or any thing else!!

Seems really overcomplicated. You could just use the

<<> and <>>

block.

the2000

lordibel wrote:
Seems really overcomplicated. You could just use the
<<> and <>>
block.

How simple is nesting like 100 “and” booleans?

Last edited by the2000 (Jan. 5, 2021 22:37:15)

Rendangbike2

Support! No more hassle again!

PkmnQ

lordibel wrote:
p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p- wrote:
I have seen that there are things that need a lot of blocks that could be shortened to 1 block. This would allow more room in the area ad less work required. What I am suggesting is a block we already have but an improvement. there are 3 blocks that can use this improvement and they are
(join [] [world])
(letter [] of [world])
<() contains ()? :: operators>
anyways, these blocks have 2 slots in them. If you want more you have to add more blocks. My idea is to update this into this block:
<() contains () [or v] () @delInput @addInput :: operators>
When you click on the triangle it adds another input. There's also a function in the middle, which holds or or and.
You can do this up to 30 times. This would improve decoding numbers and other things as well. 1 thing would be
when green flag clicked
ask [give me c ordinates ad I will go to that slot! write it like 000 and 000] and wait
go to x: (letters (1) (2) and (3) @delInput @addInput of (answer) :: operators ) y: (letters (9) (10) (11) @delInput @addInput of (answer) :: operators)
This is just a simple example. Let me know if you support, any suggestions or any thing else!!
Seems really overcomplicated. You could just use the
<<> and <>>
block.

Of course, I can just make an overly long block like this:

<<<<<<> and <>> and <<> and <>>> and <<<> and <>> and <<> and <>>>> and <<<<> and <>> and <<> and <>>> and <<<> and <>> and <<> and <>>>>> and <<<<<> and <>> and <<> and <>>> and <<<> and <>> and <<> and <>>>> and <<<<> and <>> and <<> and <>>> and <<<> and <>> and <<> and <>>>>>>

This is an account that exists.

Here, have a useful link:

The Official List of Rejected Suggestions by Za-Chary

PoIygon

MeIzAwezomeDede wrote:
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-

The pen is still confusing me

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

New!

gosoccerboy5

gosoccerboy5 wrote:
.bump
a .bump file is essentially a .exe file that automatically bumps your topic to the top when you place one in your forum topic. Handle with care.

Caution. Side effects of using twice within twenty-four hours may include: minimods yelling at you

Discuss Scratch