mitdk wrote:

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"

Yes, all correct. and..

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 ())

actually, i just seemed to think of another workaround. sorry @Greg8128 but i think i will remove the stack block.
Thanks for all the support and suggestions.

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

end

mitdk wrote:

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.

I'm not sure.. we don't want to ask for too much

(section(1) of split[0244726382346234890] on character[8]::operators)

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

((0) - (0))

MartianSoil wrote:

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but what if you did
(section(1) of split on character:perators)

That would mess it up, which would it report. I assume the first one, but I feel like this would be better if it actually reported on the character number, like this:
(section() of split on character number:perators)
When you click the last input it would bring up the number keypad that is used in other operator blocks such as

((0) - (0))

mitdk wrote:

If there are multiple of 1 character (say 2 periods) then you would get 3 sections. As for your other question, I got this idea from python, with the function
split(num, .)
In python, the split character disappears. I would go with that.

-CloudGate- wrote:

there is a pretty easy workaround, and most people who need this block will find it easy to make

MartianSoil wrote:

I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but what if you did

(section(1) of split[0244726382346234890] on character[8]::operators)

That would mess it up, which would it report. I assume the first one, but I feel like this would be better if it actually reported on the character number, like this:

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

When you click the last input it would bring up the number keypad that is used in other operator blocks such as

((0) - (0))

EDIT: Fixed Scratchblocks. Sorry that the emojis messed up script.

(split (3) characters [left v] of [Hello this is some text]::operators)//Reports "Hel"
(split (3) characters [right v] of [Hello this is some text]::operators)//Reports "ext"

MapleSyrup911 wrote:

I think something like this would be easier to understand for new scratchers

(split (3) characters [left v] of [Hello this is some text]::operators)//Reports "Hel"
(split (3) characters [right v] of [Hello this is some text]::operators)//Reports "ext"

(section (1) of split [a.b.c] on character [.] :: operators)

(section (1) of split [a..b] on character [..] :: operators)

(section (1) of split [a,b] on character [.] :: operators)

(section (3) of split [a.b] on character [.] :: operators)

(item ( v) of [list v] :: list)

awesome_guy6856 wrote:

workaround involves like 50 billion blocks and it's super complex and I hate it, so I support. However, I think the block you suggest is a little… not good. I think it would work better if it returned a list, and you could use list blocks on it. (Basically how .split() works in python)

Greg8128 wrote:

awesome_guy6856 wrote:

workaround involves like 50 billion blocks and it's super complex and I hate it, so I support. However, I think the block you suggest is a little… not good. I think it would work better if it returned a list, and you could use list blocks on it. (Basically how .split() works in python)

Due to the way Scratch works, you would only be able to select a list to add to, which isn't quite the same as returning a new list. But I agree

PkmnQ wrote:

There seems to be a lot of confusion over what this does, so I've made a post that can be referred to.

(section (1) of split [a.b.c] on character [.] :: operators)

This simply reports “a”. Think of it as a list, with “.” as a separator.

(section (1) of split [a..b] on character [..] :: operators)

This simply reports “a”. The word “character” is misleading.

(section (1) of split [a,b] on character [.] :: operators)

This simply reports “a,b”. It's sort of like a 1-item list.

(section (3) of split [a.b] on character [.] :: operators)

This simply reports an empty string. It acts similarly to this block:

(item ( v) of [list v] :: list)

(section (1) of split [a..b] on string [..] :: operators)

rontinn wrote:

what if something has an odd number of characters and is split into two sections?

PkmnQ wrote:

There seems to be a lot of confusion over what this does, so I've made a post that can be referred to.

(section (1) of split [a.b.c] on character [.] :: operators)

This simply reports “a”. Think of it as a list, with “.” as a separator.

(section (1) of split [a..b] on character [..] :: operators)

This simply reports “a”. The word “character” is misleading.

(section (1) of split [a,b] on character [.] :: operators)

This simply reports “a,b”. It's sort of like a 1-item list.

(section (3) of split [a.b] on character [.] :: operators)

This simply reports an empty string. It acts similarly to this block:

(item ( v) of [list v] :: list)