medians wrote:

Bringing this topic up.

TheCreatorOfUnTV wrote:

Can't you mod Scratch's source code to do this? Just add the feature, remove Scratch Cat, remove Gobo and change the logo to something else, and you now have a new programming language! (Especially since Scratch Team has only implemented 1 block-related suggestion.)
Still, great idea!

set (foo) to [10]

set [foo v] to [mouse x]

set (foo) to [200]

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

This would shorten scripts but it is a semi-support because of this concern.

1. People new to programming may believe that

set (foo) to [10]

would set foo to 10, but instead it would set the value of foo to 10, so now they are confused when foo ends up being empty.

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to (mouse x)

set (foo) to [200]

(foo) //value = 200 so 
((foo) - (200)) //would equal 0 because
set (foo) to [mouse x] // then 200 and
set (foo) to [200] //would be the same.

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to [mouse x]

set (foo) to [200]

ihavenocluewhythisis wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

This would shorten scripts but it is a semi-support because of this concern.

1. People new to programming may believe that

set (foo) to [10]

would set foo to 10, but instead it would set the value of foo to 10, so now they are confused when foo ends up being empty.

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to (mouse x)

set (foo) to [200]

actually if you check, it WOULD set the variable to 200

(foo) //value = 200 so 
((foo) - (200)) //would equal 0

thank custom blocks.

medians wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to [mouse x]

set (foo) to [200]

I do not understand what you're talking about, it would set the variable with the same name as the value of mouse x (not mouse x itself) to 200..

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

ihavenocluewhythisis wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

This would shorten scripts but it is a semi-support because of this concern.

1. People new to programming may believe that

set (foo) to [10]

would set foo to 10, but instead it would set the value of foo to 10, so now they are confused when foo ends up being empty.

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to (mouse x)

set (foo) to [200]

actually if you check, it WOULD set the variable to 200

(foo) //value = 200 so 
((foo) - (200)) //would equal 0

thank custom blocks.

No it wouldn't. The way the block works is to set the VALUE of the variable to the input. For example if you set an answer to 20 and set the reporter value of answer to hide, it will check to see if there is a variable named 20 and set that to hide.

set <you are seeing this post? :: sensing> to [1] // if boolean = true it will create/use a variable called true, false works the same but with false instead of true.

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

medians wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to [mouse x]

set (foo) to [200]

I do not understand what you're talking about, it would set the variable with the same name as the value of mouse x (not mouse x itself) to 200..

I'm wondering if you put a built in reporter, would it set the built in reporter's value to 200?

medians wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

medians wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to [mouse x]

set (foo) to [200]

I do not understand what you're talking about, it would set the variable with the same name as the value of mouse x (not mouse x itself) to 200..

I'm wondering if you put a built in reporter, would it set the built in reporter's value to 200?

No, it would use the value of the reporter.

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

medians wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

medians wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to [mouse x]

set (foo) to [200]

I do not understand what you're talking about, it would set the variable with the same name as the value of mouse x (not mouse x itself) to 200..

I'm wondering if you put a built in reporter, would it set the built in reporter's value to 200?

No, it would use the value of the reporter.

Okay then, that settles the concern but what about it being complex for beginners?

(value of [foo v] :: variables) // You can place a block in the dropdown, which adds more functionality too! Based off of the variable reporter.
set variable [foo v] to [] :: variables // Based off of the set () to () block

set variable (value of [foo v] :: variables) to [] :: variables

set variable (value of (value of [foo v] :: variables) :: variables) to [] :: variables

TheCreatorOfUnTV wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

medians wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

medians wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

And wouldn't it enable a workaround to not controlling the mouse pointer? Correct me if I'm wrong.(Which I'm probably)

set [foo v] to [mouse x]

set (foo) to [200]

I do not understand what you're talking about, it would set the variable with the same name as the value of mouse x (not mouse x itself) to 200..

I'm wondering if you put a built in reporter, would it set the built in reporter's value to 200?

No, it would use the value of the reporter.

Okay then, that settles the concern but what about it being complex for beginners?

Maybe the variable blocks could be changed to:

(value of [foo v] :: variables) // You can place a block in the dropdown, which adds more functionality too! Based off of the variable reporter.
set variable [foo v] to [] :: variables // Based off of the set () to () block

so that

set variable (value of [foo v] :: variables) to [] :: variables

would be more easily explainable. As a bonus, this:

set variable (value of (value of [foo v] :: variables) :: variables) to [] :: variables

would be possible!

doggy_boi1 wrote:

Also, how is this too complicated for beginners? even so, they dont have to use it (it's not even a block)

huwahz wrote:

doggy_boi1 wrote:

Also, how is this too complicated for beginners? even so, they dont have to use it (it's not even a block)

They could find out that they could do that, and think that it will do the same thing as set with the drop-down. They use it, but do not know it doesn't work like that.
btw this is ThisIsTemp's alt

doggy_boi1 wrote:

huwahz wrote:

doggy_boi1 wrote:

Also, how is this too complicated for beginners? even so, they dont have to use it (it's not even a block)

They could find out that they could do that, and think that it will do the same thing as set with the drop-down. They use it, but do not know it doesn't work like that.
btw this is ThisIsTemp's alt

On the off chance that they happen to just accidentally put a variable there, why would they assume that when using variables in any other scenario will result in the value of the variable being the input? If somebody loaded the scratch editor for the first time and was testing variables, why would they even try putting the circle block in a square input? they'd likely use the equation blocks first.

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

doggy_boi1 wrote:

huwahz wrote:

doggy_boi1 wrote:

Also, how is this too complicated for beginners? even so, they dont have to use it (it's not even a block)

They could find out that they could do that, and think that it will do the same thing as set with the drop-down. They use it, but do not know it doesn't work like that.
btw this is ThisIsTemp's alt

On the off chance that they happen to just accidentally put a variable there, why would they assume that when using variables in any other scenario will result in the value of the variable being the input? If somebody loaded the scratch editor for the first time and was testing variables, why would they even try putting the circle block in a square input? they'd likely use the equation blocks first.

Because majority of the platform are young, or are not at all experienced with programming. When I first saw this I thought of this as the same, although I have been active on Scratch for about 2 years. They could also see it in a advanced project.

doggy_boi1 wrote:

ThisIsTemp1 wrote:

doggy_boi1 wrote:

huwahz wrote:

doggy_boi1 wrote:

Also, how is this too complicated for beginners? even so, they dont have to use it (it's not even a block)

They could find out that they could do that, and think that it will do the same thing as set with the drop-down. They use it, but do not know it doesn't work like that.
btw this is ThisIsTemp's alt

On the off chance that they happen to just accidentally put a variable there, why would they assume that when using variables in any other scenario will result in the value of the variable being the input? If somebody loaded the scratch editor for the first time and was testing variables, why would they even try putting the circle block in a square input? they'd likely use the equation blocks first.

Because majority of the platform are young, or are not at all experienced with programming. When I first saw this I thought of this as the same, although I have been active on Scratch for about 2 years. They could also see it in a advanced project.

but this is how it behaves with every other block, this is how variables just generally work. In this case, you wouldn't even know how variables work anyways.