FINALLY! Reverse Codification!

I don't know if you can say "one-liner" about a block with internal helpers. :~)

Well... I'm only calling it that because it's one stack block there, the REPORT. (except the WARP, but...)

Ah. It says here anything can be done in one line, in that sense, with functional programming. (But you have to use reporter IF sometimes.)

9 posts were split to a new topic: Jargon file

Should I call it a 23-liner then? Or 24-liner?

18 posts were split to a new topic: Pros and cons of codification and reverse codification

Hey I want to add compatability with some extensions, and reduce the length of the code generated. I tried doing this already in the Map Snap Blocks in block, but this doesn't have the conversion of block code to script change, meaning the ability to convert back-and-forth is lost. I can't edit this block
untitled script pic (4)
so I don't know what is going on in there to make the system meet my needs.

Is a primitive.

Well then to convert would I need the table to have the original and shortened types?
Because I imagine that would be easier than rewriting code of to work for my needs

Between what code of () generates and the shortened form

I don't want to shorten it because you can use this for a text based language.

It's actually faster to use the primitive codification, instead of searching through a huge table. Plus, if you manage to automate the mapping, it won't take long.

My goal was to make a compressed system for doing math, in which programs could be made in snap! or a typed version, and shared in a small amount of text which is still readable. So I decided to remove as much 'filler' as possible and maybe integrate custom blocks to speed up math.


You know you can type control-F and then type an algebraic expression into the search bar, right?

Wanna work on the new year's project?

untitled script pic (31)


New 7.0.4 feature.

Still it could be useful. Using inputs to quicken up the process, creating visual data, and a cool project