Scratch 3 should be case sensitive

theonlygusti

<[a] = [A]> // false
(uppercase of [theonlygusti] :: operators) // THEONLYGUSTI
(lowercase of [DaSpudLord] :: operators) // daspudlord

gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890

Would certain projects become broken if the behavior of the equality block were to be changed?

theonlygusti

Chibi-Matoran wrote:
Would certain projects become broken if the behavior of the equality block were to be changed?

Yes

theonlygusti

Chibi-Matoran wrote:
it would in fact be useful for text engines.

Text engines, base64, username encryption, username decryption, cloud projects, understanding other programming languages, passwords, best practices, sanitising user input, understanding how a computer handles characters internally, the list goes on

The4thPixel

I don't support because you can just type the values out in upper or lower case manually. If the ST really needs to take the time to make a block like this which such an easy workaround, then we're probably the laziest generation of all time. GG.

dude341

No support, like many others have said, this would break lot's of projects, and the workaround is easy.

Placeholder

Firedrake969

The4thPixel wrote:
I don't support because you can just type the values out in upper or lower case manually. If the ST really needs to take the time to make a block like this which such an easy workaround, then we're probably the laziest generation of all time. GG.

You're forgetting about user input.

'17 rickoid

bf97b44a7fbd33db070f6ade2b7dc549

gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890

The4thPixel wrote:
I don't support because you can just type the values out in upper or lower case manually. If the ST really needs to take the time to make a block like this which such an easy workaround, then we're probably the laziest generation of all time. GG.

What do you mean? The suggestion isn't about typing out the string literal; it's about making Scratch compare characters and strings differently!

dude341 wrote:
No support, like many others have said, this would break lot's of projects, and the workaround is easy.

Even though I said that projects would be broken, I still support this suggestion. Also, would you mind providing a convenient workaround?

EDIT: Firedrake969 ninja'd me again! >

Last edited by gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890 (Jan. 8, 2017 19:10:16)

SuperHal989

There should be a seperate block for case sentitive __ = __, and leave the current one as is.

SuperHAL989 Prime has awoken!

if <Awoken> then
    
set [Your health v] to [ 0]
end

Username was destroyed by SuperHAL989 prime
\

he despawned. D:

gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890

SuperHal989 wrote:
There should be a seperate block for case sentitive __ = __, and leave the current one as is.

Thank you for providing a solution to the backwards-compatibility problem instead of engaging in sophistry like the forum regulars.

Empty-Map

Wow I was about to create a post about the exact thing. My reasons for why I agree:

1) There are workarounds for (A = a - True)
2) There are no workarounds for (A = a - False)

That one reason should be enough to make the scratch team reconsider. If anyone does find a workaround for (A = a - False) then please tell me cause I'm working on a game which requires that.

Pokemon Showdown (Battle Simulator) - 6 Game Modes With 17 Pokemon To Choose From! Buy Items In The Shop!

↑..Click The Image To Go to The Project..↑

theonlygusti

Chibi-Matoran wrote:
The suggestion isn't about typing out the string literal; it's about making Scratch compare characters and strings differently!

No it isn't; it's about making these all report false:

<[Hello] = [hello]>
<[theonlygusti] = [TheOnlyGusti]>
<(letter (1) of [abracadabra]) = [A]>

theonlygusti

The4thPixel wrote:
I don't support because you can just type the values out in upper or lower case manually.

Lol, when do you ever have to compare two non-variables? Think about it, this feature would be most useful in the following cases:

<(letter (i) of (CHARACTERSET)) = (letter (j) of (username))>
<(answer) = [PasSwOrd123]>
<(letter (i) of (string :: custom-arg)) = (letter :: custom-arg)>

GG.

Out of interest, what does that mean? At the end of your post?

gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890

theonlygusti wrote:
Chibi-Matoran wrote:
The suggestion isn't about typing out the string literal; it's about making Scratch compare characters and strings differently!

No it isn't; it's about making these all report false:
<[Hello] = [hello]>
<[theonlygusti] = [TheOnlyGusti]>
<(letter (1) of [abracadabra]) = [A]>

That's what I'm saying. Currently, Scratch ignores case when comparing characters and strings, but you want the case to matter. The4thPixel was saying something about typing the string value.

EDIT: Oh, I see the ambiguity in my sentence; it could also mean that characters and strings should not be equal. Just ignore the part about characters; I consider the “letter n of str” block to report a character, but I guess Scratch doesn't have chars.

Last edited by gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890 (Jan. 8, 2017 20:38:02)

theonlygusti

Chibi-Matoran wrote:
That's what I'm saying. Currently, Scratch ignores case when comparing characters and strings, but you want the case to matter. The4thPixel was saying something about typing the string value.

But Scratch does not differentiate between characters and strings, and I am not suggesting that they start doing this. I feel that all strings should be treated case-sensitively, regardless of their length.

gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890

theonlygusti wrote:
Chibi-Matoran wrote:
That's what I'm saying. Currently, Scratch ignores case when comparing characters and strings, but you want the case to matter. The4thPixel was saying something about typing the string value.
But Scratch does not differentiate between characters and strings, and I am not suggesting that they start doing this. I feel that all strings should be treated case-sensitively, regardless of their length.

I understand that. Did you see my edit? My wording was ambiguous.

EDIT: Here is what I meant in simple terms:
Currently:

"a" == "A" //true

You want:

"a" == "A" //false

What I meant by characters and strings:

"a" == "A" //false
'a' == 'A' //false

What you thought I meant:

'a' == "a" //false

I accept full responsibility for this misunderstanding. Just ignore what I said about “characters.”

Last edited by gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890 (Jan. 8, 2017 20:46:49)

1a3c5e7g9i

dude341 wrote:
No support, like many others have said, this would break lot's of projects, and the workaround is easy.

Please show me what it is.

Chibi-Matoran wrote:
SuperHal989 wrote:
There should be a seperate block for case sentitive __ = __, and leave the current one as is.
Thank you for providing a solution to the backwards-compatibility problem instead of engaging in sophistry like the forum regulars.

Are you being sarcastic or supportive?

Wao how is that possible

Uh Squidward? Yes Spongebob? You might want to look at this… HOLY SHRIMP! If we don't act now, well, think about how many clams I'll have to cough up JUST to see an extra portion of nick.com… or worse, to see ALL of it in general! *** Reader! This is not a fictional sketch! It actually is, but that's not the point. Learn more at the link that Spongebob left at the first instance of “this”.

gdpr533f604550b2f20900645890

1a3c5e7g9i wrote:
dude341 wrote:
No support, like many others have said, this would break lot's of projects, and the workaround is easy.
Please show me what it is.
Chibi-Matoran wrote:
SuperHal989 wrote:
There should be a seperate block for case sentitive __ = __, and leave the current one as is.
Thank you for providing a solution to the backwards-compatibility problem instead of engaging in sophistry like the forum regulars.
Are you being sarcastic or supportive?

I'm being supportive.

1a3c5e7g9i

Chibi-Matoran wrote:
1a3c5e7g9i wrote:
-snip-
Chibi-Matoran wrote:
-snip-
Thank you for providing a solution to the backwards-compatibility problem instead of engaging in sophistry like the forum regulars.
Are you being sarcastic or supportive?
I'm being [highlight]supportive[/highlight].

Ok then.
———————————————————————————–

SuperHal989 wrote:
There should be a seperate block for case sentitive __ = __, and leave the current one as is.

What would it look like? This?:

<"case sensitive"[foo] = "case sensitive"[Foo]::operators>

Or something different?

Wao how is that possible

Uh Squidward? Yes Spongebob? You might want to look at this… HOLY SHRIMP! If we don't act now, well, think about how many clams I'll have to cough up JUST to see an extra portion of nick.com… or worse, to see ALL of it in general! *** Reader! This is not a fictional sketch! It actually is, but that's not the point. Learn more at the link that Spongebob left at the first instance of “this”.

Sheep_maker

A separate case sensitive equals operator has already been suggested.

<[a] is exactly [A]::operators>

- Sheep_maker This is a kumquat-free signature. :P
This is my signature. It appears below all my posts. Discuss it on my profile, not the forums. Here's how to make your own.
.postsignature { overflow: auto; } .scratchblocks { overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: hidden; }

Discuss Scratch