Discuss Scratch

DevanWolf
Scratcher
100+ posts

(round ()) block change

Hello, you should update this block:
(round())
into a function that is made like:
([round v]of()::operators)
because it look more better than the other one.

Last edited by DevanWolf (Aug. 15, 2014 15:30:59)

derpmeup
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

No support, I think it looks fine already.

Last edited by derpmeup (July 25, 2014 21:14:26)


hey bro that's a pretty good meme xD!
DevanWolf
Scratcher
100+ posts

(round ()) block change

derpmeup wrote:

No support, I think it looks fine already.
Are you sure they gone remove the old round(number) block and turn into a function that uses (|round v| of (number))?
TheHockeyist
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

No support. This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.


DevanWolf
Scratcher
100+ posts

(round ()) block change

TheHockeyist wrote:

No support. This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.
No they won't. Because it's in my Scratch 1.4 .image mod already added by myself.

Last edited by DevanWolf (Aug. 2, 2015 15:57:40)

Firedrake969
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

DevanWolf wrote:

TheHockeyist wrote:

No support. This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.
No they won't. Because it's in my Scratch 1.4 .image mod already added myself.
He means that the projects already made on this site would stop working.

No support, because “round of X” sounds strange.

'17 rickoid

bf97b44a7fbd33db070f6ade2b7dc549
DevanWolf
Scratcher
100+ posts

(round ()) block change

Firedrake969 wrote:

DevanWolf wrote:

TheHockeyist wrote:

No support. This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.
No they won't. Because it's in my Scratch 1.4 .image mod already added myself.
He means that the projects already made on this site would stop working.

No support, because “round of X” sounds strange.
REALLY POSSIBLE? Rule is that they transform old
(round())
blocks into
([round v]of()::operators)
just like
(abs()::operators)
turns into
([abs v]of())
or
forever if<>
turns into
forever
if<>then
when they are uploaded from Scratch 1.4 or lower.

Last edited by DevanWolf (Nov. 3, 2014 02:25:16)

AonymousGuy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

DevanWolf wrote:

You should make this block:
(round())
into a function that is:
([round v]of()::operators)
because it look more better than the other one.
Yeah, but it sounds really weird - “round of x”.

If this were implemented, it would probably have to look more like this:
([sin of v] () :: operators) 
([cos of v] () :: operators)
([tan of v] () :: operators)
([abs of v] () :: operators)
//etc...
([round v] () :: operators)
which is just stranger…
DevanWolf
Scratcher
100+ posts

(round ()) block change

when I receive[Is it released? v]
say(if<([round v] of (1)::operators)>(0)>then[YAY!!! IT'S FINALLY RELEASED!!! :D]else[No, It's Not Released! :(]::operators)
Random version of my crazy round detector
DevanWolf
Scratcher
100+ posts

(round ()) block change

stickfiregames
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

I would support this since it makes it easier to switch between the operator blocks.

To everyone saying that “round of” doesn't make sense, neither does “10^ of” because it would be read as “10 to the power of of”. Anyway that wouldn't stop the from making the block.










If you can read this, my signature cubeupload has been eaten by an evil kumquat!




or you just used Inspect Element, you hacker

;
HOWING
Scratcher
500+ posts

(round ()) block change

No support. And because it would look like this:
([round v] () :: operators // That would probably look weird
Or:
([round v] of (9) :: operators // That would just look strange
Original:
(round ())

Hockeyist wrote:

This would cause numerous scripts to stop working.

Last edited by HOWING (Aug. 17, 2014 17:10:01)


Check out my most popular game! Check out my cool apple catcher! Check out my awesome Bullet Bill Dodge!
AonymousGuy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

stickfiregames wrote:

I would support this since it makes it easier to switch between the operator blocks.

To everyone saying that “round of” doesn't make sense, neither does “10^ of” because it would be read as “10 to the power of of”. Anyway that wouldn't stop the from making the block.
But because ^ is a symbol, it's meaning is not directly read - I still read it “10 to the power of” because the of is simply not read when reading it like that.

But “round of” is much more obviously weird.
DevanWolf
Scratcher
100+ posts

(round ()) block change

stickfiregames wrote:

I would support this since it makes it easier to switch between the operator blocks.

To everyone saying that “round of” doesn't make sense, neither does “10^ of” because it would be read as “10 to the power of of”. Anyway that wouldn't stop the from making the block.
^-^
stickfiregames
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

AonymousGuy wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

I would support this since it makes it easier to switch between the operator blocks.

To everyone saying that “round of” doesn't make sense, neither does “10^ of” because it would be read as “10 to the power of of”. Anyway that wouldn't stop the from making the block.
But because ^ is a symbol, it's meaning is not directly read - I still read it “10 to the power of” because the of is simply not read when reading it like that.

But “round of” is much more obviously weird.

My point is that the exact reading of the block doesn't matter, because the meaning can still be understood.










If you can read this, my signature cubeupload has been eaten by an evil kumquat!




or you just used Inspect Element, you hacker

;
TimothyLawyer
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

DevanWolf wrote:

because it look more better than the other one.
it looks less better than the current one
Zro716
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

your idea is actually plausible, although I wouldn't put round() with the rest of the special operators.

instead, I think we could take out floor() and ceiling() and put it in a dropdown with round(), like this:
([round v](1) ::operators)
([floor v](1) ::operators)
([ceiling v](1) ::operators)

so I half-support
Firedrake969
Scratcher
1000+ posts

(round ()) block change

Zro716 wrote:

your idea is actually plausible, although I wouldn't put round() with the rest of the special operators.

instead, I think we could take out floor() and ceiling() and put it in a dropdown with round(), like this:
([round v](1) ::operators)
([floor v](1) ::operators)
([ceiling v](1) ::operators)

so I half-support
Support

'17 rickoid

bf97b44a7fbd33db070f6ade2b7dc549
DevanWolf
Scratcher
100+ posts

(round ()) block change

TimothyLawyer wrote:

DevanWolf wrote:

because it look more better than the other one.
it looks less better than the current one
Really!? I want to make
(round())
in all in one block! So that I can usually switch between the round choice and each one with the dropdown instead of switching the blocks around.

Last edited by DevanWolf (Nov. 3, 2014 02:26:54)

Powered by DjangoBB

Standard | Mobile