Turtle costume

[bh]

@s_federici

Maybe an empty string would be more appropriate as a result?

Ah, no, don't encourage him! "Turtle" is the right answer.

[s_federici]

@bh

"Turtle" is the right answer.

How can "Turtle" be the right answer for the "costume name OF sprite" reporter block if the turtle is the "naked" sprite without costume...?

[bh]

Because it's wrong of Jens to suggest that metaphor. A naked sprite shouldn't look like anything. The turtle costume is implemented differently from other costumes, but when you click on the Costumes tab, there's a button for the Turtle costume. I bet that if you show 20 kids a sprite that looks like a turtle, and ask "what costume is this sprite wearing?" all 20 will say "the turtle costume." Maybe adults will say something different, but most adults will agree with all the kids.

[s_federici]

@bh

if you show 20 kids a sprite that looks like a turtle, and ask "what costume is this sprite wearing?" all 20 will say "the turtle costume."

That is exactly what I would say myself. That is why I would like that even the "turtle costume" (sorry Jens ) would be part of the next costume mechanism with a base number of 1 instead of 0, so to be compatible with Scratch and BYOB

[jens]

you must all make other projects than the kids I'm working with
They make games and animations with several costumes, nobody needs the "Turtle" costume except for the kinds of geometry stuff we're showing them. If "next costume" would also cycle through the "Turtle" shape it would have to be deletable. But then we'd have to come up with something else for "no costume", because, you know, costumes load asynchronous.

I dunno, I've done soooo many workshops and sat in soooo many others, it's fascinating to read the kinds of issues that arise elsewhere.

[bh]

I think Stefano isn't quite right about the desired behavior. I agree with you that that would mess up users' ability to set up looping through costume variants. Here's what I want:
Turtle = costume 0.
NEXT COSTUME from turtle -> costume 1.
** But NEXT COSTUME from costume (length of my costumes) also -> costume 1.

That is, you never get to the turtle by saying NEXT COSTUME. But you can escape from it! Why not? Better a sensible action than (silently!) treating it as an error.

The current behavior is, from a user's standpoint, weirdly inconsistent. We tell them the turtle is a costume: . But things like give an incomprehensible 0 result.