Scratch
archived forums
#1 2011-11-29 14:22:09
receiving broadcasts
Our team has a suggestion for the next version of Scratch. There is a <when I receive[
top hat block for broadcasts, but we thought based on the design of our program that their should be a regular block to receive broadcasts like there is to send a broadcast
(<broadcast[) We hope you consider our suggestion, it would really make Scratch better.
kfry123 :-D
Offline
#2 2011-11-29 14:27:59
- Tbtemplex97
- Scratcher
- Registered: 2011-11-12
- Posts: 100+
Re: receiving broadcasts
Hey thats my Idea! well i Support It completely, it would make it easier to use and actually take up less memory
Offline
#3 2011-11-29 14:52:57
Re: receiving broadcasts
How would it work? "Wait until I recieve <x>"?
Things I've made: kurt | scratchblocks2 | this cake
Offline
#4 2011-11-29 14:59:09
- Tbtemplex97
- Scratcher
- Registered: 2011-11-12
- Posts: 100+
Re: receiving broadcasts
blob8108 wrote:
How would it work? "Wait until I recieve <x>"?
well im thinking of to way's, either a "wait until i recieve <>" as a normal block of its own or a "wait until [(Dropdown)] "
The Dropdown will say:
"Variable"
"message"
"colour"
ect
Offline
#5 2011-11-30 02:58:16
Re: receiving broadcasts
Tbtemplex97 wrote:
blob8108 wrote:
How would it work? "Wait until I recieve <x>"?
well im thinking of to way's, either a "wait until i recieve <>" as a normal block of its own or a "wait until [(Dropdown)] "
The Dropdown will say:
"Variable"
"message"
"colour"
ect
You can already do "Wait until variable changed" with a few blocks, I think.
Things I've made: kurt | scratchblocks2 | this cake
Offline
#7 2011-11-30 12:21:21
Re: receiving broadcasts
iTweak0r wrote:
I don't want [wait until I receive ()], I want < I receive () > as a boolean!
But a broadcast is an event, not a state. You can use booleans to test for states, like "is <key> pressed", but not to check for events.
The broadcast doesn't take any time to happen; it's instant. When would you expect "receiving ()" to be true? It seems to me that this only makes sense if a sprite is "receiving" for a certain amount of time, but this doesn't seem logical to me.
Things I've made: kurt | scratchblocks2 | this cake
Offline
#8 2011-11-30 13:01:06
- Tbtemplex97
- Scratcher
- Registered: 2011-11-12
- Posts: 100+
Re: receiving broadcasts
blob8108 wrote:
iTweak0r wrote:
I don't want [wait until I receive ()], I want < I receive () > as a boolean!
But a broadcast is an event, not a state. You can use booleans to test for states, like "is <key> pressed", but not to check for events.
The broadcast doesn't take any time to happen; it's instant. When would you expect "receiving ()" to be true? It seems to me that this only makes sense if a sprite is "receiving" for a certain amount of time, but this doesn't seem logical to me.
Its very logical to me, if wanted it before, it lets you put a If i recive / wait until i recieve in the middle of a script, making it easier to use a single script and use up less memory, altogether its and excellent idea (in my opinoin)
Offline
#10 2011-12-01 12:32:49
- joefarebrother
- Scratcher
- Registered: 2011-04-08
- Posts: 1000+
Re: receiving broadcasts
iTweak0r wrote:
I don't want [wait until I receive ()], I want < I receive () > as a boolean!
no. It will only be true for one millisecond, therefore it is only usefull in <wait until>, <repeat until> with 1 block inside and <forever if> with 1 block inside, or if the broadcast block was in a <forever>, <forever if> or <repeat until>.
Consider instead: a block called (most recent broadcast)
My latest project is called
Offline
#11 2011-12-01 13:22:34
Re: receiving broadcasts
Tbtemplex97 wrote:
blob8108 wrote:
iTweak0r wrote:
I don't want [wait until I receive ()], I want < I receive () > as a boolean!
But a broadcast is an event, not a state. You can use booleans to test for states, like "is <key> pressed", but not to check for events.
The broadcast doesn't take any time to happen; it's instant. When would you expect "receiving ()" to be true? It seems to me that this only makes sense if a sprite is "receiving" for a certain amount of time, but this doesn't seem logical to me.Its very logical to me, if wanted it before, it lets you put a If i recive / wait until i recieve in the middle of a script, making it easier to use a single script and use up less memory, altogether its and excellent idea (in my opinoin)
"Wait until I receive" does make sense. I still don't see the logic behind "If I'm receiving". 
Things I've made: kurt | scratchblocks2 | this cake
Offline
#12 2011-12-01 13:42:50
- RedRocker227
- Scratcher
- Registered: 2011-10-26
- Posts: 1000+
Re: receiving broadcasts
It'd be impossible for there to be a boolean though, as a broadcast takes, like, 0.01 seconds or something.
Last edited by RedRocker227 (2011-12-01 13:43:31)
Why
Offline
#13 2011-12-01 14:33:37
Re: receiving broadcasts
RedRocker227 wrote:
It'd be impossible for there to be a boolean though, as a broadcast takes, like, 0.01 seconds or something.
Exactly; that's what I thought. "<if I'm recieving>" doesn't make sense.
Things I've made: kurt | scratchblocks2 | this cake
Offline
#14 2011-12-02 11:35:35
Re: receiving broadcasts
blob8108 wrote:
iTweak0r wrote:
I don't want [wait until I receive ()], I want < I receive () > as a boolean!
But a broadcast is an event, not a state. You can use booleans to test for states, like "is <key> pressed", but not to check for events.
The broadcast doesn't take any time to happen; it's instant. When would you expect "receiving ()" to be true? It seems to me that this only makes sense if a sprite is "receiving" for a certain amount of time, but this doesn't seem logical to me.
Ya but in panther they have it
Make it in Scratch! because it's cooler when it's made in scratch
Offline