Oh, okay. I feel so dumb now xD
Offline
Isn't the end bit of a c-block supposed to be the same length as the top bit?
ifreally really really long booleansayshort end partsayshouldn't it be the same length?
Offline
joefarebrother wrote:
Isn't the end bit of a c-block supposed to be the same length as the top bit?
ifreally really really long booleansayshort end partsayshouldn't it be the same length?
Yeah, it should, but it's technical limitations...
Could we have a shorter tag name, like just [sb]?
Last edited by scimonster (2012-01-29 07:51:09)
Offline
scimonster wrote:
joefarebrother wrote:
Isn't the end bit of a c-block supposed to be the same length as the top bit?
ifreally really really long booleansayshort end partsayshouldn't it be the same length?Yeah, it should, but it's technical limitations...
Could we have a shorter tag name, like just [sb]?
Offline
what about all the old miscellaneous posts?
Offline
JSO wrote:
Hey Scratchers!
We have just replaced the ancient forum blocks with a new 'plugin' I've been developing for a while.
You can now write out scripts between [scratchblocks][/scratchblocks] tags. It uses a syntax that is supposed to look very similar to the real scratch blocks. It will probably all become a whole lot clearer after looking at the example below![]()
More help on how to use the plugin is available on this wiki page.
If you find any bugs that are not yet listed here, please report them on this forum thread. Thanks!
Please do not spam this thread with your blocks experiments; I encourage you to practice your forum block skills but please do so here for now![]()
Code:
when green flag clicked repeat (10) go to [mouse-pointer v] point in direction (pick random (-180) to (180)) repeat until <touching [edge v] ?> move (2) steps end wait (1) secs end think [Woah! New scripts in the forums!] for (2) secswhenclicked
repeat10go tomouse-pointer ▼point in directionpick random-180to180repeat untiltouchingedge ▼?move2stepswait1secsthinkWoah! New scripts in the forums!for2secs
whenclicked
foreversaythis is epiksaybut hard to use
Offline
These are way better than the old ones. Those were messy and just plain UGLY!
OMG THEY ARE WAYYYYYYYYYYY BETTERwhenclicked
TEST
Offline
Lucario621 wrote:
Greenatic wrote:
Would it be possible to add another one, but that allows you to define the parameters? (i.e. [customblocks]"'blockspec' in 'category'"[/customblocks] ) That would allow us to bring back the Block Library to those who don't install the Antidote...
This is an idea that we considered during development. However, we did not proceed as we felt it would take too much of our resources to add, for a feature that only a small section of the forum and wiki articles would use.
I don't see how it would be too difficult. All you have to do is tell it to set the color based on 'category', and parse the blockspec just like it already does.
See?Italreadyparses ▼blockspecs!
Last edited by Greenatic (2012-01-30 19:39:29)
Offline
Chrischb wrote:
RedRocker227 wrote:
I still wish there was somewhere where we could find out how to produce ALL the blocks though.
Is this not good enough? D:
Sometimes, I don't want to open Scratch just to look at the whole name of the block. For example, most of us have forgotten that there is a "?" after "touching color".
Offline
mattlai2 wrote:
Chrischb wrote:
RedRocker227 wrote:
I still wish there was somewhere where we could find out how to produce ALL the blocks though.
Is this not good enough? D:
Sometimes, I don't want to open Scratch just to look at the whole name of the block. For example, most of us have forgotten that there is a "?" after "touching color".
There's a "?" after most, if not all, booleans.
Offline
SpaceManMike wrote:
what about all the old miscellaneous posts?
*Facepalm*. Your sig gave me permission c: What's that got to do with the new blocks?
Offline
whenclicked
foreverthinkInteresting ▼fora fewsecswait2secssayWill this be a Scratch text-based programming language?fora fewsecs
Last edited by maxskywalker (2012-01-29 15:47:43)
Offline
Finally it's released in the forums!
Offline
Maybe the ? should be optional for booleans
Offline
Darn, it was worth a shot.clone self
whenclicked
foreversayDarn, it was worth a shot.think(timer)thinktimerthinkvariablethinkvariable
Last edited by henley (2012-01-29 17:33:37)
Offline
I like mywhenclicked
sayOH MY SAURON!!!forover 90000000!!!!!secssayThese are much better!for3secs-TRANSMISSION ENDED-
block.-TRANSMISSION ENDED-
Last edited by wolvesstar97 (2012-01-30 01:49:01)
Offline
whenclicked
old lady saysI sure hope nobody pelts me with banannas!forhmm...secsbroadcastpelt her with banannas guys!when I receivepelt her with banannas guys!changeBANANNA!by3setHARFAFRAFAF DIE LADYtoover 9000000!-TRANSMISSION ENDED-
Last edited by wolvesstar97 (2012-01-30 01:53:21)
Offline
joefarebrother wrote:
Maybe the ? should be optional for booleans
And the % sign for those that have.
Offline
Oh no! The << problem is still there!
<<
((
))
>>
Offline
Hardmath123 wrote:
Oh no! The << problem is still there!
<<
((
))
>>
What problem is that?
Offline
You know, if you want to test the blocks, it would be preferred to not submit the text.
Instead of using quick-post, choose "Post reply" and Preview your post. When you're done experimenting, go back.
Last edited by Vista4563 (2012-01-30 09:04:53)
Offline
Paddle2See wrote:
Hardmath123 wrote:
Oh no! The << problem is still there!
<<
((
))
>>What problem is that?
<<'s and (('s (and the rest of the old blocks) create images — not to mention the rest of the post turns bold.
Now that we have the new blocks, can we delete the old [blocks]?
Offline