Maybe you could instead of needing this:
[broadcast [lalalala]]
[set [data] to (300)]
You could have this:
[broadcast [lalalala] > with args (data)=()]
So you can send broadcasts with an argument(s) to send data-needing arguments
A use:
OSes
You want to make a command line for it. How?
It would need something like this:
[insert line reading script]
[broadcast (line1)]
Which could lead to parameter problems.
Instead....
[insert line reading script]
[broadcast [eval] with arg (line1) = (line1)]
See what i mean?
Any support?
Last edited by bbbeb (2011-04-09 19:47:09)
Offline
Yes!
Offline
kimmy123 wrote:
No.
Why not? I think this could be very useful.
Offline
kayybee wrote:
No.
Unless someone explains.
I'm not use to this arg stuff.
It is broadcasting with an argument. That way, you don't have to set a variable to a side message of the broadcast. I'm guessing it would need a (broadcast arg) block to read it.
Offline
Yeah broadcasts have always been like * versions of user defined functions, which is what I think you are getting at. I think it would be better if current broadcasts were left alone and you could get this functionality with a build your own blocks feature. I don't think anyone would really be opposed to a build your own blocks feature.
Offline