Add a Not-Equal Block

-Back_Scratcher-

It would look like this:

<[] = []>

Except instead of the = sign, it would be the ≠ sign. (Not Equal)

dhuls

No support. Easy workaround

<not <[] = []>>
<[] ≠ []::operators> // I fixed your block (copypasted the not equal sign)

Last edited by dhuls (May 10, 2021 23:53:49)

Mr_cornman

No support. You can work around it and also how would this be of any help?

DarthVader4Life

Sadly, the workaround seems to be too easy.

<not <[] = []>>

A too easy workaround was also the basis for rejecting a forever if.*

forever if < > :: control

end

Could easily be replicated with

forever
if <> then

end
end

So I'm afraid, no support.

*That's not actually true.

Last edited by DarthVader4Life (June 24, 2021 03:43:48)

Artsygirlforlife

<not <[] = []>>

MDCCCLXVII

Such blocks will not be added because of very easy workarounds (this includes the rejected forever if block).

MDCCCLXVII

Scratch was down while I tried to submit this reply, so this resulted in a double post (in which they were not a minute between!)

Last edited by MDCCCLXVII (May 11, 2021 01:44:40)

Codingfairy07

-Back_Scratcher- wrote:
It would look like this:
<[] = []>
Except instead of the = sign, it would be the ≠ sign. (Not Equal)

Yes this would be so helpful!

plqaokwsijeduhrfyg

Codingfairy07 wrote:
-Back_Scratcher- wrote:
It would look like this:
<[] = []>
Except instead of the = sign, it would be the ≠ sign. (Not Equal)
Yes this would be so helpful!

Did you literally not read any of the replies? As many have said just use

<not <[] = []>>

Igor-Gaming

No such programming language uses ≠
They use =!
Also like everyone else was saying, just put the equal operator in the not operator.

han614698

is this different than (it proabably is)

<[] xor []::operators>

Anyway, no support, the workaround is too easy.

<[w] ≠ [xx]::operators>
//becomes
<not <[w] = [xx]>>

Sikecon

dhuls wrote:
No support. Easy workaround
<not <[] = []>>

^^^ Woah look that is a cool workaround.
Therefore, no support.

Last edited by Sikecon (May 18, 2021 00:42:44)

ScratchCat1038

Semi-support. Like everyone has said, easy workaround:

<not <[] = []>

But a block like this could compact that into one block, which would be a tad bit more convenient.

DarthVader4Life

ScratchCat1038 wrote:
Semi-support. Like everyone has said, easy workaround:
<not <[] = []>
But a block like this could compact that into one block, which would be a tad bit more convenient.

Not really, it's just a few seconds of life.

Za-Chary

MDCCCLXVII wrote:
Such blocks will not be added because of very easy workarounds (this includes the rejected forever if block).

Note that the “forever if” block was removed because it was confusing, not because it had an easy workaround.

fdreerf

han614698 wrote:
is this different than (it proabably is)
<[] xor []::operators>

Not really, but xor would only be able to contain booleans like and, or & not, while this block would be like >, <, and = in that you can insert and value or reporter block you like. So if block were to be added, you could use it to workaround xor by simply inserting the booleans into its inputs.

Paddle2See

Za-Chary wrote:
MDCCCLXVII wrote:
Such blocks will not be added because of very easy workarounds (this includes the rejected forever if block).
Note that the “forever if” block was removed because it was confusing, not because it had an easy workaround.

Which is also a potential reason why it might get added some day - it is clearly confusing to some Scratchers that the block does not exist. The fact that there are workarounds is not necessarily a reason to reject.

reallysoftuser

<not <[Me] = [Support]>>

For reasons stated in this workaround.

GoboThePlant

reallysoftuser wrote:
<not <[Me] = [Support]>>
For reasons stated in this workaround.

Read your signature.

reallysoftuser

GoboThePlant wrote:
Read your signature.

i really need to change that

Discuss Scratch