Scratch

zammer990 · 2012-07-03 11:23:49

Many games need something to react to several different things or to check if a variable is any of a set. While this is possible like this:

if <<<(value) = (5)> or <(value) = (3)>> or <(value) = (7)>>

It's long and cumbersome, it's also possible with lists, but making a list for every check is also long and cumbersome. I suggest a block like this:

<() or ()>

this would let you put strings or integers into it and allow this:

if <(value) = <(5) or <(6) or (7)>>>

Possibly just as a modification to the current or block, but it would allow far smaller scripts.

SciTecCf · 2012-07-03 11:25:58

What would it report? 6 or 7?

Last edited by SciTecCf (2012-07-03 11:26:23)

Wes64 · 2012-07-03 11:29:16

Just add all the values to a list and use

if <[list v] contains (value)>

Last edited by Wes64 (2012-07-03 11:29:27)

zammer990 · 2012-07-03 11:36:01

SciTecCf wrote:
What would it report? 6 or 7?

It's trying to check a single value against a set of others, it'd report true if it's equal to any of them.

wes65 wrote:
Just add all the values to a list and use
[scratchblocks]
if <[list v] contains (value)>

True, it's possible, but having a list is cumbersome and this is about making it quicker to do.

Wes64 · 2012-07-03 11:50:45

Lists are less cumbersome than what you've got. Also it is easy to add and remove data from the list, while you giant chain of blocks is unwieldy.

And I do not know what you mean by "making it quicker". Scratch can do all these operations in a millisecond.

veggieman001 · 2012-07-03 12:56:46

I disagree; it's like this in regular programming too and it's a good habit to get into.

LS97 · 2012-07-03 13:03:23

I don't support mainly because it would generate extreme confusion with the actual OR block, and that not a single programming language uses OR operators for strings.
It's just not logical.

To prove my point then, tell me, what would happen if I used that block in a non-boolean? tongue

An acceptable alternative that I still wouldn't like but I wouldn't despise either is extendible equal/unequal blocks that accept any number of alternatives on either side.

However lists are still far less cumbersome and actually have programming logic.

zammer990 · 2012-07-03 14:35:28

veggieman001 wrote:
I disagree; it's like this in regular programming too and it's a good habit to get into.

"like this in regular programming"

Code:

>>> a = "cats are fun"
>>> if a == "goats are fun" or "cats are fun" or 5:
    print "ok"

ok

Just tried it in python.

And for people saying they're not cumbersome, having a large amount of lists can slow your game considerably, because it has to maintain a lot of mutable objects. It also fills up the variables section.

This could also just be a modification to the existing "or" block.

Wes64 · 2012-07-03 14:48:00

zammer990 wrote:
And for people saying they're not cumbersome, having a large amount of lists can slow your game considerably, because it has to maintain a lot of mutable objects.

Lists only affect my computer when I save. I can program just as speedily in a game that has 50 lists as I can in a blank project.

Molybdenum · 2012-07-03 14:48:12

zammer990 wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
I disagree; it's like this in regular programming too and it's a good habit to get into.
"like this in regular programming"
Code:
>>> a = "cats are fun"
>>> if a == "goats are fun" or "cats are fun" or 5:
    print "ok"

ok
Just tried it in python.

And for people saying they're not cumbersome, having a large amount of lists can slow your game considerably, because it has to maintain a lot of mutable objects. It also fills up the variables section.

This could also just be a modification to the existing "or" block.

In Visual Basic (which I use), it says something like "string cannot be converted to boolean", whan it tries to evaluate "cats are fun" as a boolean. At least I think it does that (I haven't tested it).

LS97 · 2012-07-03 14:55:58

I'm sure that what you tried in Python worked, but because you didn't thoroughly test it.

Most of the time using the OR operator in that manner will NOT give a compiler error. This is because intelligent languages will allow strings and integers to be automatically converted to booleans.

Therefore, the code IF VARIABLE = VALUE or VALUE2 or VALUE3
reads as
-does variable = value? if yes, evaluate IF
-does value2 convert to TRUE? if yes, evaluate
-does value3 convert to TRUE? if yes, evaluate

joefarebrother · 2012-07-03 17:14:44

What your asking for is a nondetermenistic evaluator. Do you have any idea how hard that is to for the scratch team to program?????

Molybdenum · 2012-07-03 17:26:29

joefarebrother wrote:
What your asking for is a nondetermenistic evaluator. Do you have any idea how hard that is to for the scratch team to program?????

That's not non-deterministic. It basically does a "reverse distributive property" on the booleans. (Or something like that)

RedRocker227 · 2012-07-03 18:19:02

I'd like that.

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2012-07-03 11:23:49

Integer and string "or" block

#2 2012-07-03 11:25:58

Re: Integer and string "or" block

#3 2012-07-03 11:29:16

Re: Integer and string "or" block

#4 2012-07-03 11:36:01

Re: Integer and string "or" block

SciTecCf wrote:

wes65 wrote:

#5 2012-07-03 11:50:45

Re: Integer and string "or" block

#6 2012-07-03 12:56:46

Re: Integer and string "or" block

#7 2012-07-03 13:03:23

Re: Integer and string "or" block

#8 2012-07-03 14:35:28

Re: Integer and string "or" block

veggieman001 wrote:

Code:

#9 2012-07-03 14:48:00

Re: Integer and string "or" block

zammer990 wrote:

#10 2012-07-03 14:48:12

Re: Integer and string "or" block

zammer990 wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

Code:

#11 2012-07-03 14:55:58

Re: Integer and string "or" block

#12 2012-07-03 17:14:44

Re: Integer and string "or" block

#13 2012-07-03 17:26:29

Re: Integer and string "or" block

joefarebrother wrote:

#14 2012-07-03 18:19:02

Re: Integer and string "or" block

Board footer