Scratch

sparks wrote:

Hmm... I'm still undecided... They're not needed but then it is a feature that most any scripting language supports as a constant. I use them a lot in Panther. Then again, if they weren't in Panther I would be perfectly content to just type True and False into the = operators. I'll vote that we do remove them...

I was talking about my block I made instead of these two blocks a while ago. The <[]> block, you insert true or false and it will report true or false, I made it so that we don't need two blocks.... kind of... XD I made it because I wanted a way to get true or false without messy scripts.

But that is what my block was for, to make a variable mainly, or text, convert to a boolean.

I vote to keep them. <true> is provided in practically every text-based language. Removing it would be like removing ( (10) + (5) ) [Hey, it can be replaced by ((10) - ((0) - (5)))!] or (change (x) by (5)) [Set X to (X position) + (5)]. Not to mention it wouldn't be fair to zorket (you remove his block several months later without telling him). If you're persistent on getting rid, rather than adding, blocks, you can pick on my <<>=<>> (not that I feel that should be deleted, I didn't know you could put booleans into string slots until I made the blocks and got a surge of reminders). That's my opinion, Greenatic.

Hardmath123 wrote:

I vote to keep them. <true> is provided in practically every text-based language. Removing it would be like removing ( (10) + (5) ) [Hey, it can be replaced by ((10) - ((0) - (5)))!] or (change (x) by (5)) [Set X to (X position) + (5)]. Not to mention it wouldn't be fair to zorket (you remove his block several months later without telling him). If you're persistent on getting rid, rather than adding, blocks, you can pick on my <<>=<>> (not that I feel that should be deleted, I didn't know you could put booleans into string slots until I made the blocks and got a surge of reminders). That's my opinion, Greenatic.

No, because the as string block is basically like a drop-down for both true and false, only it has a text insert instead. 

For the BYOB blocks -make clone run ______- and -make _______ run _______-, the (____ of ____) block which they seem to include doesn't come with BYOB nor is it in the block library. How does one make these blocks (They aren't downloadable.)

zippynk wrote:

For the BYOB blocks -make clone run ______- and -make _______ run _______-, the (____ of ____) block which they seem to include doesn't come with BYOB nor is it in the block library. How does one make these blocks (They aren't downloadable.)

They are in BYOB 3.1.1, they are new blocks.
Download it here.


BTW did anyone notice there is a link to the library there!

I just noticed it.

Last edited by Pecola1 (2011-11-15 15:39:21)

Just for the record the block library (in all)
has had 3928 posts and 202943 views.
Make that 3929 posts and 202944 views. 

Last edited by Pecola1 (2011-11-15 16:51:44)

I GOTTA IDEA
Retired blocks section, it would have any blocks which were removed for those who may want to use them in the future, someone may want to have the true and false booleans, so we should put them in retired blocks, its blocks that aren't needed, but can be useful in some peoples eyes. 

Greenatic wrote:

Pecola1 wrote:

I GOTTA IDEA
Retired blocks section, it would have any blocks which were removed for those who may want to use them in the future, someone may want to have the true and false booleans, so we should put them in retired blocks, its blocks that aren't needed, but can be useful in some peoples eyes. 

What would we do about statistics?

We would make in grey the blocks which were removed. 

BYOB

Inputs: a,b,c. all numbers.
Variables: x1, x2
Script:
set x1 to    ( (-1*b)+sqrt((b*b)-(4*(a*c) ) ) )/(2*a)
set x2 to    ( (-1*b)-sqrt((b*b)-(4*(a*c) ) ) )/(2*a)

Report: List: x1, x2

Last edited by SuperJedi224 (2011-11-16 01:43:01)

I was discussing this with a friend last night. There are two ways we can look at the library, either we accept any block that works, or we only accept blocks that are useful and can't be easily carried out using existing blocks. It seems to me a little odd that it's only these True, False and comparator blocks we're debating since that simply suggests we're trying to save space in the operators category. Are we trying to save space and only take very useful blocks - thereby removing a few of the existing blocks or do we continue to accept all blocks?

Hardmath123 wrote:

sparks wrote:

I was discussing this with a friend last night. There are two ways we can look at the library, either we accept any block that works, or we only accept blocks that are useful and can't be easily carried out using existing blocks. It seems to me a little odd that it's only these True, False and comparator blocks we're debating since that simply suggests we're trying to save space in the operators category. Are we trying to save space and only take very useful blocks - thereby removing a few of the existing blocks or do we continue to accept all blocks?

Perfectly true. If I put my mind to it, I can find a way to eliminate up to 50% to the existing blocks, too. Like Wiki workarounds.

74/125.


And this is the 1,000,001 post!

Last edited by scimonster (2011-11-16 07:56:59)

sparks wrote:

I was discussing this with a friend last night. There are two ways we can look at the library, either we accept any block that works, or we only accept blocks that are useful and can't be easily carried out using existing blocks. It seems to me a little odd that it's only these True, False and comparator blocks we're debating since that simply suggests we're trying to save space in the operators category. Are we trying to save space and only take very useful blocks - thereby removing a few of the existing blocks or do we continue to accept all blocks?

A wise discussion...

Are we trying to save space?
No.
Are we going to accept any block?
No.

This means.we.must specify what blocks we allow.
I think we should go back to my idea, any block which is not quite.needed,.should be somehow out of the way.
Should we just put less.important.blocks at.the.end of.the post?
Or have a place.for less useful blocks, which would BTW be a bit rude 

We want the blocks not as.usefully out of the away, but we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. 

thisisntme wrote:

[url]http://i.imgur.com/SlABQ.gif [url][url]http://i.imgur.com/4xTET.gif [url]

i cant figure out how to add an image i tried ?