You probably know the "ask and wait" block;

ask [] and wait

but I am suggesting one where you can only do numbers.
The block will look like this:

ask [] and wait for numbers::sensing

and whenever it happens in a script, a keypad will pop up on the screen with the numbers 0-9.
If this is a dupe, I'm sorry, but there was nothing like this when I was looking for dupes.

you mean basically a number input like the ask block? Well, you can use

set [result v] to []
repeat until <not <(result) = []>>
ask [number?] and wait
if <not <((answer) + (0)) = ((answer) + (1))>> then
set [result v] to (answer)
end
end 

I guess. That's the simple workaround.

I think that there should be a better way of getting input via the keyboard then the ask block (s). So kinda support but that other thing would be better.

This seems kinda specific, but it's a good idea. Like if your trying to make like a math game, it would be easier. Support. Would it be like the number pad for variables?

pavcato wrote:

Would it be like the number pad for variables?

Yes!

Also, thanks for the support!

Bump.

p2Ep2E wrote:

you mean basically a number input like the ask block? Well, you can use
-snip-
I guess. That's the simple workaround.

You can reduce the number of blocks required

set [result v] to []
repeat until <not <(result) = []>>
ask [number?] and wait
if <(answer) = ((answer) / (1))> then
set [result v] to (answer)
end
end 

Removing the +0 block and replacing the +1 with /1 isn't exactly a radical change.

p2Ep2E wrote:

Removing the +0 block and replacing the +1 with /1 isn't exactly a radical change.

Not block amount wise but the two addition blocks and the not block made it quite long

Okay, you're right, but it's still more or less the same.

But… It isn't so useful? You don't need that so often and if you need it the workaround is easy and mentioned in posts before this.
And there is many ways to create this workaround… It could be more blocks in a tighter space like

repeat until <<(answer) contains (0)> or <<<(answer) contains (1)> or <<<(answer) contains (2)> or <<<(answer) contains (3)> or <<<(answer) contains (4)> or <<<(answer) contains (5)> or <<<(answer) contains (6)> or <<<<(answer) contains (7)> and <<(answer) contains (8)>> or <<(answer) contains (9)>>>>>>>>
ask [G'day madam, would you like to tell me a number.] and wait
end

EIectron wrote:

It could be more blocks in a tighter space like

snip::grey

Not really, since you could write haha123thisisweird and it would be fine.

EIectron wrote:

But… It isn't so useful? You don't need that so often and if you need it the workaround is easy and mentioned in posts before this.
And there is many ways to create this workaround… It could be more blocks in a tighter space like

repeat until <<(answer) contains (0)> or <<<(answer) contains (1)> or <<<(answer) contains (2)> or <<<(answer) contains (3)> or <<<(answer) contains (4)> or <<<(answer) contains (5)> or <<<(answer) contains (6)> or <<<<(answer) contains (7)> and <<(answer) contains (8)>> or <<(answer) contains (9)>>>>>>>>
ask [G'day madam, would you like to tell me a number.] and wait
end

That won't work as the contains block is for whether the input is an entry in a list.

In case you're wondering how I found this topic, I found this while looking for a duplicate of this topic with the really long title even though someone already found the duplicate.
This could be really useful for mystery games where you have to enter a code to be able to go inside a mysterious mansion.
You can already do this using lists and sprites, but this would be even more useful!

An example of how this could be used:

ask [What's the keycode?] and wait for numbers:: sensing
if <(answer) = [whatever you want the keycode to be]> then
say [Welcome to the mansion!] for (2) secs
else
if <not <(answer) = [whatever you want the keycode to be]>> then
repeat (3)
say [Intruder!] for (2) secs
wait (0.1) secs
end
end
end

Smile is this

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

yeah support