>
What about "a is greater than b"?
So ({() * ()} >)
?
No, it would be ({() * ()}) >
({({}) >}) >
would be a nested grey ring? And anyway that would be redundant. This wouldn't: ({({} >)} >)
or {{} >} >
.
This won't have as much features as Snap!, so I would go into to much detail. I don't plan to be able to do nested scripts.
[scratchblocks]
say ((a) * ((b) + ((c) - ((d) / (e :: variables)))))
[/scratchblocks]
Yes, I know.
Well, at least nesting more than once.
TO
[scratchblocks]
script variables ((v1) :: grey) ((v2) :: grey) ((v3) :: grey) ((v4) :: grey) @delInput @addInput :: grey
set [v1 v] to ((d) / (e :: variables))
set [v2 v] to ((c) - (v1))
set [v3 v] to ((b) + (v2))
set [v4 v] to ((a) * (v3))
say (v4)
[/scratchblocks]
Even that requires 2-layer nesting.
2-layer I can do. But that is the farthest I am going to go unless you remake the way the script is ran making it infinite.
Fine. Make it 2-layer, and I'll see if I can make it ∞-layer. Oh, and add the operators soon.
I have an idea. I can make it so when doing math, it is stores the result in a variable for later use.
ugh. terrible idea. giant math op -> lots of memory taken.
Well, if you do
It wont be a problem. Ill do two layer tomorrow, because I'm going somewhere tonight.
then no ∞-layer today
I thought you were doing that.
Only when you've done 2-layer, so I can build off of that.
Also, the JS test should use this (and the project ported to 7-dev):
Oh and if it's evening for you, I might not even be awake when you add 2-layer.
This topic was automatically closed after reaching the maximum limit of 100 replies. Continue discussion at Snap! Console Blocks (Part 3).