roijac wrote:
see this: http://suggest.scratch.mit.edu/forums/6 … ock-block-
Thanks! I put it in the topic post, and gave it a vote.
Last edited by scimonster (2011-06-22 12:47:01)
Offline
Bringing Up My Post.
Edit: 4600th post!
Last edited by scimonster (2011-07-10 04:52:20)
Offline
I think it should be "break loop" so it wouldn't effect ifs but it would effect repeats, repeat untils, and forevers. If there is some sort of block editor, it should detect keywords such as "repeat" and "loop" and will ask if it should be effected by "break loop"
It should look like:
__ ________
| |_| |
| Break Loop|
|____________|
---------EDIT----------
This is my 45th post
Last edited by joefarebrother (2011-07-13 15:26:53)
Offline
joefarebrother wrote:
I think it should be "break loop" so it wouldn't effect ifs but it would effect repeats, repeat untils, and forevers. If there is some sort of block editor, it should detect keywords such as "repeat" and "loop" and will ask if it should be effected by "break loop"
It should look like:
__ ________
| |_| |
| Break Loop|
|____________|
---------EDIT----------
This is my 45th post
Yes, maybe
Offline
I support, also a go back to start of c would be nice
Offline
DigiTechs wrote:
jj, c blocks are loops, so ther would be no proper use for the block there.
Actually, it would make more sense to break out of a loop than a condition checker
("repeat ()" as opposed to "if <>"), but maybe you would want to break out of any.
Offline
Total supportingness.
Offline
Oh. I think he means like a break, but it only ends the current loop in the middle, it doesn't completely break out of it.
Offline
Wait, I didn't support this way back when? Whoops! I support!
Offline
Support.
Zupport as well.
Offline
It isn't strictly needed as you can use ifs and repeat untils to work around it, but it would be nice.
Offline