make the ask bock a reporter

space_elephant

because there is no reason to make it be a stack block that sets a reporter
it should look like

(ask [thing] and wait)

in older projects with the other ask,

ask[thing]and wait
say(answer)for(2)secs
think(answer)for(2)secs

would be replaced with

set[answer v]to(ask[thing]and wait)
say(answer::variables)for(2)secs
think(answer::variables)for(2)secs

Seam49

space_elephant wrote:
because there is no reason to make it be a stack block that sets a reporter
it should look like
(ask [thing] and wait)
in older projects with the other ask,
ask[thing]and wait
say(answer)for(2)secs
think(answer)for(2)secs
would be replaced with
set[answer v]to(ask[thing]and wait)
say(answer::variables)for(2)secs
think(answer::variables)for(2)secs

Yeah, this is how it is in other programming languages, but we need to keep scratch simple.

TheAdriCoolManDude

No Support, the ask block is as perfect as it is, I see no need for a reporter. This helps keep things simple you know.

Botcho_Otkho

In addition to what has been said, you can workaround it if custom reporters'll come out in Scratch 3.0:

ask (question::custom-arg)::custom hat//this is the define block.
ask (question::custom-arg) and wait
return (answer)::custom cap

Last edited by Botcho_Otkho (Aug. 27, 2018 13:31:04)

ShinigamiBlacky

Botcho_Otkho wrote:
when custom reporters'll come out in Scratch 3.0:

Is this confirmed?

Botcho_Otkho

ShinigamiBlacky wrote:
Botcho_Otkho wrote:
when custom reporters'll come out in Scratch 3.0:
Is this confirmed?

thanks for telling me that

space_elephant

Seam49 wrote:
space_elephant wrote:
-snip-
Yeah, this is how it is in other programming languages, but we need to keep scratch simple.

TheAdriCoolManDude wrote:
No Support, the ask block is as perfect as it is, I see no need for a reporter. This helps keep things simple you know.

but how does that make it simpler?
The only reason I know for it to be a stack block is so no reporters have side effects.
When custom reporters are added this will no longer mean anything and they should make this work.

Botcho_Otkho wrote:
In addition to what has been said, you can workaround it if custom reporters'll come out in Scratch 3.0:
ask (question::custom-arg)::custom hat//this is the define block.
ask (question::custom-arg) and wait
return (answer)::custom cap

you mean like this?

define ask (question) and wait::custom reporter
ask(question)and wait
return(answer)::custom-arg cap

Botcho_Otkho

space_elephant wrote:

you mean like this?

define ask (question) and wait::custom reporter
ask(question)and wait
return(answer)::custom cap

Yes.

Last edited by Botcho_Otkho (Aug. 27, 2018 14:22:14)

TheRealNetherBefore

No support- the current set up for the ask block is easier for younger users to understand as it's closer to real life logic- you ask a question then get an answer. It may not be how it works in other languages, but for people who don't have much experience with coding and how to properly “think” about code, it's much more understandable.

banana439monkey

Actually, I semi-support.

Atvl, JavaScript does this.

If not, others too.

For those who came from other languages (like Ken) to Scratch, they're probably willing to use this feature. For young children, they may prefer the ask block. Having both seems confusing, but so is having both change and set, where change is simply an alias.

What I would do, however, is to introduce that as a block. Not replacing the block.

Banana

SuperJumpCube

I personally support the addition of this block, but then add it to some sort of ‘Advanced Blocks’ extension on scratch 3.0.
Doing so takes away the problem of kids not understanding what each block does when coding, but it does give the problem of kids not understanding your code when looking inside the project(Not as if I understood anything anyways). Once a solution has been brought to this problem, I'd love to see such a block in scratch 3.0

mybearworld

This topic is a duplicate. Discuss here.
This topic got merged, meaning that all the posts from my topic are now on this topic. This was the original post of my topic.

I'd like

ask [] and wait::reporter

I think it's really weird how you need to set an “answer” variable - it makes it harder to code with it.

I mean, what's easier?

ask [What's your name?] and wait
set [name v] to (answer)
ask [What's your favorite food?] and wait
set [food v] to (answer)
say (join [You are ] (join (name) (join [ and your favorite food is ] (join (food) [.]))))

or
say (join [You are ] (join (ask [What's your name?] and wait) (join [ and your favorite food is ] (join (ask [What's your favorite food?] and wait) [.]))))

Last edited by mybearworld (June 26, 2021 20:02:33)

PkmnQ

I'm assuming that they go from left to right. Support, I think the answer reporter is unnecessary.

mybearworld

PkmnQ wrote:
I'm assuming that they go from left to right. Support, I think the answer reporter is unnecessary.

Yes, they do.

EpicGhoul993

Support, same reasons.

PicoMetrics

Support, I see the use, but I still want to keep

(answer)

mybearworld

PicoMetrics wrote:
Support, I see the use, but I still want to keep
(answer)

I said added, not replaced - when it'd be replaced it'd break a ton of projects.

Ihatr

I can see why you did this, python works like that

Anyway, I like this variation a lot more than the current one (probably because of myself using python), but I think it would actually help shorten scripts and be easily learnable all while being an easy implementation.

Maximouse

Ihatr wrote:
I can see why you did this, python works like that

Not only Python, actually. Most programming languages use something like this to read input – one exception is C++, whose syntax would look more like this in Scratch:

read input into [variable v] :: sensing

the2000

I don't like this idea because it creates the idea of a reporter block which can pause the script that it's running in. Reporters are supposed to give instant output, not pause like this block does.

Discuss Scratch