ThatOneWeirdDude wrote:

actual duplicate

Goodthingsaregood66 wrote:

Too confusing for my brain to understand, I don't get it.

misteray wrote:

Support, and

sportfan999 wrote:

It may seem a little complicated to beginning Scratchers. Sorry, but no support. I may support it if the block name was easier to read.

A lot of things are complicated to beginning Scratchers.

support (split blocks)

has to be complex? <true>

cwkavery46304 wrote:

and the block name has to be complex! what else could you do?

has to be complex? <true>

split [] by [] and add to [list v] // split [abc.de.f] by [.] and add to [list v] would add "abc", "de", and "f" to [list] in that order.

Greg8128 wrote:

Maybe a block such as

split [] by [] and add to [list v] // split [abc.de.f] by [.] and add to [list v] would add "abc", "de", and "f" to [list] in that order.

The advantage of this block would be that it would let you split large strings more efficiently: e.g. splitting an essay into words would require only one pass over the text instead of hundreds or possibly thousands

MartianSoil wrote:

Maybe edit the original post so that the suggestion is a bit more clear.

mitdk wrote:

I would now like these 2 blocks to be added

(section() of split[] on character[]::operators)

and:

split [] by [] and add to [list v]::operators 

credit to Greg8128 for this idea(as you can see in the posts above)

MartianSoil wrote:

(pi::operators)

is a rejected feature and can be implemented with

([22]/[7])

cwkavery46304 wrote:

mitdk wrote:

I would now like these 2 blocks to be added

(section() of split[] on character[]::operators)

and:

split [] by [] and add to [list v]::operators 

credit to Greg8128 for this idea(as you can see in the posts above)

mitdk
maybe they should move some of the opperators blocks to a new section called ‘text’ that would also have your split blocks.

(section [3] of split [a.b] on character [.]::operators) // sections 3 and up do not exist
(section [1] of split [a.b] on character [Q]::operators) // that character is not in the input
(section [1] of split [a.b.c] on character [.]::operators) // multiple of that character are in the input
(section [1] of split [a.b] on character [ab]::operators) // this does not need an explanation.

add (section [] of split [] on character []::operators) to [list v]::list

([abs v] of ())

panda-wat wrote:

Nice, as long as it doesn't crash if it sees these:

(section [3] of split [a.b] on character [.]::operators) // sections 3 and up do not exist
(section [1] of split [a.b] on character [Q]::operators) // that character is not in the input
(section [1] of split [a.b.c] on character [.]::operators) // multiple of that character are in the input
(section [1] of split [a.b] on character [ab]::operators) // this does not need an explanation.

(section (3) of split [a.b] on character [.]::operators) // would report an empty string
(section (1) of split [a.b] on character [Q]::operators) // would report "a.b"
(section (1) of split [a.b.c] on character [.]::operators) // would report "a"
(section (1) of split [a.b] on character [ab]::operators) // would report "a.b"

(section (1) of split [a.ab.b] on character [ab]::operators) // would report "a."
(section (2) of split [a.ab.b] on character [.]::operators) // would report "ab"

cwkavery46304 wrote:

username… all complicated.

PkmnQ wrote:

panda-wat wrote:

Nice, as long as it doesn't crash if it sees these:

(section [3] of split [a.b] on character [.]::operators) // sections 3 and up do not exist
(section [1] of split [a.b] on character [Q]::operators) // that character is not in the input
(section [1] of split [a.b.c] on character [.]::operators) // multiple of that character are in the input
(section [1] of split [a.b] on character [ab]::operators) // this does not need an explanation.

They would report this:

(section (3) of split [a.b] on character [.]::operators) // would report an empty string
(section (1) of split [a.b] on character [Q]::operators) // would report "a.b"
(section (1) of split [a.b.c] on character [.]::operators) // would report "a"
(section (1) of split [a.b] on character [ab]::operators) // would report "a.b"

And here's some extras to help you understand better:

(section (1) of split [a.ab.b] on character [ab]::operators) // would report "a."
(section (2) of split [a.ab.b] on character [.]::operators) // would report "ab"

panda-wat wrote:

Nice, as long as it doesn't crash if it sees these:

(section [3] of split [a.b] on character [.]::operators) // sections 3 and up do not exist
(section [1] of split [a.b] on character [Q]::operators) // that character is not in the input
(section [1] of split [a.b.c] on character [.]::operators) // multiple of that character are in the input
(section [1] of split [a.b] on character [ab]::operators) // this does not need an explanation.

Also, the stack block, if this reporter were to be made, would have an obvious workaround like this:

add (section [] of split [] on character []::operators) to [list v]::list

Lastly, I think that this is a little too advanced for a website geared toward eight year olds. but then again:

([abs v] of ())

set [ v] to []
repeat (length of [])
change [ v] by (1)
add (section (::variables) of split [text] on character [ ]::operators) to [list v]

end