Basic88 wrote:

Wyan100 wrote:

The amount of Necropost in this Topic makes my bones rattle…

There is no such thing as necroposting in suggestions.

Really? I guess I've been hanging out in the Help with Scripts Forums too much…

Wyan100 wrote:

The amount of Necropost in this Topic makes my bones rattle…

I think there are merged posts too.

No support because it's literally 3 blocks and a number.

zacadoole1 wrote:

I think we need this block because I don't think new Scratchers (and when I say new Scratchers I mean true beginners, not just people with the rank new Scratcher) are going to be able to easily figure out NoxSpooth's solution, being new Scratchers and all and not being completely familiar with all the blocks and their functions (especially custom blocks). That being said, I half-support, because I don't think we need an entirely new block for it, maybe just a change to the current “next costume” block to add a dropdown for next or previous costume?

[next v] costume ::looks
[previous v] costume ::looks

This would be nice!

Byron_Inc wrote:

Wyan100 wrote:

The amount of Necropost in this Topic makes my bones rattle…

I think there are merged posts too.

No support because it's literally 3 blocks and a number.

Like I said, then how come you don't have to do it with the backdrops? How come backdrops have a previous, but for costumes, you need to put in an operation and such? Yes, it's easy, but it just shows that there's a missing block here.

ah yes of course we need a previous costume for scratch because new scratchers can't use a reporter block and a basic arithmetic block because their brains have not yet developed to that level of psychological function
dude
three blocks
one line
why

switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

SFollis wrote:

do switch to costume ((costume #) - 1)

I don't know if this has already been pointed out, but there is a workaround like I have put above. There is no need to give the ST more hassle.

last costume ::looks

support

i think I should be fine, this isn't necro-posting right? The last post wasn't even a month ago, right? +small bump

I support. Why would a new scratcher know the workaround without the forums?

Lythium wrote:

Support!

@All the people who said ‘workaround’

Let's remove

next costume

because it has a workaround!

switch costume to ((costume #) + (1))

The reason why one is given the direct block and another needs the workaround is so that people have an example of a complete block to base off of. If every block was only usable through its workaround, where would new scratchers even start? But eventually they'll be able to figure out the workarounds once they get comfortable with the Scratch interface for other blocks (previous costume) when given similar examples (next costume, previous backdrop). Or they don't, someone else could tell them, which we can't help. If we made it all workarounds then we might as well make new Scratchers program each individual block with actual written code ._.

DadOfMrLog wrote:

Having a single block named “next costume” makes you actually want a “previous costume” block. –But then you look and discover there isn't one! So you have to think about how you can use the blocks provided to get that functionality.

There we go, that's what I was going/trying to say =P

space_elephant wrote:

define previous costume
switch costume to [previous costume v]

then it's the wrong shade of purple

*facepalm* you just use that block as the block, you don't use it to define anything because you already have the block you need to use.. I feel like laughing (I'm not making fun of you or anything, I'm just saying =P)

I've noticed people saying things like “so new Scratchers don't know basic arithmetic?” They need to get comfortable with the website, then they'll be able to think about workarounds. If by then they don't, then I agree.
Like you may be able to tell by now, no support, but I suddenly feel happier XDDD maybe because of that last quote, thanks
Also the part about making a switch to previous costume block with that method with just one block is good to know, thanks for that

Support. New Scratchers wouldn't know the workaround. (to all of you saying the workaround is “easy”) They can look like this:

previous costume::looks

Or there would be a selection:

[next v]costume::looks
[previous v]costume::looks

No support. There is a rly easy workaround:

switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

or if u dont want 2 do it every time:

define previous costume
switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

previous costume::moreblocks

There is a simple workaround:

define previous costume
switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))::looks

which makes me wonder why scratch has this block:

switch backdrop to (previous backdrop v)

panda-wat wrote:

(snip) which makes me wonder why scratch has this block:

switch backdrop to (previous backdrop v)

This I explained in my last post =P It's an example for people to be thinking about when figuring out the workaround for next costume

-LekkerGames- wrote:

No support. There is a rly easy workaround:

switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

or if u dont want 2 do it every time:

define previous costume
switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

previous costume::moreblocks

Well then, we should tell ST to remove this block:

next costume

because there's a workaround:

switch costume to ((costume #) + (1))

No support. While I think that that this would be cool to have, I personally feel like the reason it isn’t in scratch is to encourage people to try to find a way to do it.

MartianSoil wrote:

No support. While I think that that this would be cool to have, I personally feel like the reason it isn’t in scratch is to encourage people to try to find a way to do it.

Then why is the next costume block in Scratch? It's literally the same workaround, but with addition instead of subtraction.

fdreerf wrote:

MartianSoil wrote:

No support. While I think that that this would be cool to have, I personally feel like the reason it isn’t in scratch is to encourage people to try to find a way to do it.

Then why is the next costume block in Scratch? It's literally the same workaround, but with addition instead of subtraction.

People keep calling this out, and people still keep on saying, “No support because there's a workaround”, even though a ton of things have workarounds

set [foo v] to ((foo) - (10))

repeat (10)
change [foo v] by (-1)
end

next costume

switch costume to ((costume #) + (1))

It seems weird to say “No” to a suggestion, just because there's a workaround that no one would think of at first,

fdreerf wrote:

Then why is the next costume block in Scratch? It's literally the same workaround, but with addition instead of subtraction.

nobody reads my post, where I answered that already ._. =P

IndianRuby718 wrote:

Lythium wrote:

Support!

@All the people who said ‘workaround’

Let's remove

next costume

because it has a workaround!

switch costume to ((costume #) + (1))

The reason why one is given the direct block and another needs the workaround is so that people have an example of a complete block to base off of. If every block was only usable through its workaround, where would new scratchers even start? But eventually they'll be able to figure out the workarounds once they get comfortable with the Scratch interface for other blocks (previous costume) when given similar examples (next costume, previous backdrop). (snip) If we made it all workarounds then we might as well make new Scratchers program each individual block with actual written code ._.

(snip)

I've noticed people saying things like “so new Scratchers don't know basic arithmetic?” They need to get comfortable with the website, then they'll be able to think about workarounds. If by then they don't, then I agree. (snip)

IndianRuby718 wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

Then why is the next costume block in Scratch? It's literally the same workaround, but with addition instead of subtraction.

nobody reads my post, where I answered that already ._. =P
snip

Why should a common, simple block require a workaround, but a more complex, less used block such “item # of x” doesn't? The workaround is fairly straight-forward, and the same argument applies.

set [i v] to [1]
set [position v] to [0]
repeat (length of [list v])
if <(item (i) of [list v]) = (x) > then 
set [position v] to (i)
stop [this script v]
else
change [i v] by (1)
end
end

-LekkerGames- wrote:

No support. There is a rly easy workaround:

switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

or if u dont want 2 do it every time:

define previous costume
switch costume to ((costume #) - (1))

previous costume::moreblocks

Ah yes, since everybody has the knowledge that you can plug in numbers in the switch costume block. I knew that in the womb.