It would look like this:

(letter # of [a] in [apple] :: operators)

It would act similar to the

(item # of [thing] in [list v] :: list)

, except it is used for words instead.

What happens in these cases?

(letter # of [a] in [abcabb]::operators)
(letter # of [z] in [apple]::operators)
(letter # of [ad] in [fegade]::operators)
(letter # of [] in [abc123]::operators)

coder2045 wrote:

What happens in these cases?

(letter # of [a] in [abcabb]::operators)
(letter # of [z] in [apple]::operators)
(letter # of [ad] in [fegade]::operators)
(letter # of [] in [abc123]::operators)

1. It always reports the first case, so it reports 1
2. If the word doesn't contain the letter, then it reports 0.
3. It will report 4, since “ad” is right after G, which is the third letter in the word.
4. Same as 2

Below, I created a system that loops through your text until it reaches the letter you want and then sets the output to the variable that looped through since it will have the correct number in it.

when green flag clicked
set [text v] to [Your text...]
set [i v] to [0]
repeat (length of (text))
change [i v] by (1)
if <(letter (i) of (text)) = [y]> then // replace the y with your letter
set [output v] to (i) // this variable has the answer
stop [this script v]
end
end

Is this what you wanted?

DoNotFoIIowMe wrote:

Below, I created a system that loops through your text until it reaches the letter you want and then sets the output to the variable that looped through since it will have the correct number in it.

when green flag clicked
set [text v] to [Your text...]
set [i v] to [0]
if <(text) contains [y]? :: operators> then
repeat (length of (text))
change [i v] by (1)
if <(letter (i) of (text)) = [y]> then // replace the y with your letter
set [output v] to (i) // this variable has the answer
stop [this script v]
end
end
else
set [i v] to [0]
end

Is this what you wanted?

Not exactly. I said that it will report 0 if it doesn't contain the letter.

Seth_Zaw wrote:

-snip-
Not exactly. I said that it will report 0 if it doesn't contain the letter.

Wrong - the “i” variable after the else needs to switched with “output”.

DoNotFollowMe's code converted into a custom block:

define letter # of (letter) in (string)
set [i v] to [0]
if <(string) contains (letter)? :: operators> then
repeat (length of (string))
change [i v] by (1)
if <(letter (i) of (string)) = (letter)> then
set [output v] to (i)
stop [this script v]
end
end
else
set [output v] to [0]
end

The result is in the output variable.

I suppose

(letter # of [s] in [\Scratchblocks] :: operators)

would return 1 as the Scratch Team does not like case-sensitivity.

Support. Could be a useful block.

45afc4td wrote:

as the Scratch Team does not like case-sensitivity.

That doesn't look like a serious motivation to me. I think it's just a design choice or a way of making things simpler, not an liking or a disliking towards one specific function. But I assume the output of the block would still be 1.

qucchia wrote:

DoNotFollowMe's code converted into a custom block:

define letter # of (letter) in (string)
set [i v] to [0]
if <(string) contains (letter)? :: operators> then
repeat (length of (string))
change [i v] by (1)
if <(letter (i) of (string)) = (letter)> then
set [output v] to (i)
stop [this script v]
end
end
else
set [output v] to [0]
end

The result is in the output variable.

DoNotFoIIowMe is technically me (read their siggy) so thanks for creating the custom block.

No support. There is a simple workaround:

(letter () of (item ( v) of [list v] :: list))

LuckyLucky7 wrote:

No support. There is a simple workaround:

(letter () of (item ( v) of [list v] :: list))

That's not what OP is asking but yes that does something at least.

LuckyLucky7 wrote:

No support. There is a simple workaround:

(letter () of (item ( v) of [list v] :: list))

That workaround is far beyond the correct one.

There are workarounds, so I am going for no support.
Also, you could also always make a extension and use it on ScratchX (enter at your own risk!)

AFNNetworkK12 wrote:

There are workarounds, so I am going for no support.
Also, you could also always make a extension and use it on ScratchX (enter at your own risk!)

ScratchX is shutting down next year because it runs on Flash.

Nammy

Vanilla2011 wrote:

Duplicate

Oh