"Run, and run" E block (READ THE ENTIRE OP BEFORE POSTING)

mlcreater

I like the idea of this block; I think people would use it for Mario-style games, like:

when @greenFlag clicked
run {
forever {
if <key [up arrow v] pressed?> then {
repeat (10) {
change y by (2)
} @loopArrow :: control stack
repeat (10) {
change y by (-2)
} @loopArrow :: control stack
} :: control stack
} @loopArrow :: control cap
} while running {
forever {
if <key [left arrow v] pressed?> then {
change x by (-2)
} :: control stack
if <key [right arrow v] pressed?> then {
change x by (2)
} :: control stack
} @loopArrow :: control cap
} :: control stack

xXRedTheCoderXx

mlcreater wrote:

I like the idea of this block; I think people would use it for Mario-style games, like:

when @greenFlag clicked
run {
forever {
if <key [up arrow v] pressed?> then {
repeat (10) {
change y by (2)
} @loopArrow :: control stack
repeat (10) {
change y by (-2)
} @loopArrow :: control stack
} :: control stack
} @loopArrow :: control cap
} while running {
forever {
if <key [left arrow v] pressed?> then {
change x by (-2)
} :: control stack
if <key [right arrow v] pressed?> then {
change x by (2)
} :: control stack
} @loopArrow :: control cap
} :: control stack

Oh, cool, nice use!

BosenChang

I wish to bump this topic up (for xXTheRedCoderXx)

BosenChang

(yup, I guessed I made this more popular)

xXRedTheCoderXx

BosenChang wrote:
I wish to bump this topic up (for xXTheRedCoderXx)

Thanks.

DabDatBass

run {

}while running{


}::control

run {

}while running{


}::control

Last edited by DabDatBass (July 20, 2020 16:56:43)

BosenChang

DabDatBass wrote:

run {

}while running{


}::control

run {

}while running{


}::control

Do you support this or not?

HTML-Fan

I don't like multitasking (and I was totally confused when I read “new C block”, I was like “Well … that command at least doesn't exist in C++.”) and you can use a bunch of messages. Would the second process stop as soon as the first process finishes?

DabDatBass

BosenChang wrote:
DabDatBass wrote:
run {

}while running{


}::control
run {

}while running{


}::control
Do you support this or not?

yes i do, see my post on this topic

DabDatBass

HTML-Fan wrote:
…Would the second process stop as soon as the first process finishes?

no, it does both at the same time. if one script finishes, it waits until the second one finishes , e.t.c. ex:

//does both at same time
run {
move (5) steps
turn cw (15) degrees
//[Let's say this one finishes first, now it waits for the other one to finish]::custom
}while running{
repeat until <[5] = (i)>
change [i v] by (1)
//[the script is also running whilest the top script is running. this doesn't begin when the top script finishes]::custom
add (i) to [list v]
end
}::control

Last edited by DabDatBass (July 20, 2020 17:07:28)

HTML-Fan

DabDatBass wrote:
HTML-Fan wrote:
…Would the second process stop as soon as the first process finishes?
no, it does both at the same time. if one script finishes, it waits until the second one finishes , e.t.c. ex:
//does both at same time
run {
move (5) steps
turn cw (15) degrees
//[Let's say this one finishes first, now it waits for the other one to finish]::custom
}while running{
repeat until <[5] = (i)>
change [i v] by (1)
//[the script is also running whilest the top script is running. this doesn't begin when the top script finishes]::custom
add (i) to [list v]
end
}::control

Did red said that or do you guess that that's what you assume?

pikachurock

Support. While i suck at coding and i hardly use it, i think it would be nice!

Maximouse

HTML-Fan wrote:
Would the second process stop as soon as the first process finishes?

It would either wait until both finish (probably a better solution) or return immediately, running that code in the background (complicated and confusing, but would work).

HTML-Fan

Yeah. That's where it starts to be confusing, forever-if-like.

BosenChang

Or run this:

run and repeat if finished{
...
}while running and repeat if finished{
...
}:: control

MrFluffyPenguins

HTML-Fan wrote:
Yeah. That's where it starts to be confusing, forever-if-like.

forever if isn't that confusing
if it was like this:

if <> then
forever

end
end

it would be if <> forever

but it's not, its like this:

forever
if <> then

end
end

DabDatBass

Mr_PenguinAlex wrote:
HTML-Fan wrote:
Yeah. That's where it starts to be confusing, forever-if-like.
forever if isn't that confusing
if it was like this:
if <> then
forever

end
end
it would be if <> forever

but it's not, its like this:
forever
if <> then

end
end

no, forever if is that, if something is done, then it does it 'til it is not done.

forever
broadcast [thing v] and wait
end
when I receive [thing v]
if <thing> then
forever
thing
if <not<thing>> then
stop [this script v]
end
end
end

Last edited by DabDatBass (July 20, 2020 17:35:05)

DabDatBass

use this link to see Scratch 1.4, when the forever-if then block was not deleted

scratch978654

Semi-support because it would be a great and useful feature (especially for NSes) but it would lag out Scratch.

xXRedTheCoderXx

scratch978654 wrote:
Semi-support because it would be a great and useful feature (especially for NSes) but it would lag out Scratch.

No it wouldn't. I don't think it will, at least. What makes you say that?

HTML-Fan wrote:
Did red said that or do you guess that that's what you assume?

I did.

Discuss Scratch