Uhh... What does this mean?

[coder_07]

??????

[bh]

Sounds to me like a zero-width or -height costume. Did you use

instead of

?

[coder_07]

No, this is (almost) fresh from Snapinator but I don't think it's a problem with that. But I think I do have a 0 width/height costume.

Edit: It was in a custom WRITE block I was going to deprecate because Snap! has a write block as a primitive.

[ego-lay_atman-bay]

@coder_07

this is (almost) fresh from Snapinator but I don't think it's a problem with that. But I think I do have a 0 width/height costume.

Well that's your answer. Scratch allows 0 width and height costumes, so snapinator just put the image into the snap xml, which made snap run into that error.

[bh]

@ego-lay_atman-bay

Scratch allows 0 width and height costumes

Hmm I wonder why they do and we don't. If you think of a costume as a matrix, I don't think there are zero-width matrices, but presumably our rule predates media computation.

[bluebaritone21]

I'm not sure why they allow 0×0 costumes, but they are helpful for zooming larger than the size of the stage.

[bh]

@bluebaritone21

but they are helpful for zooming larger than the size of the stage.

How? I'm missing something.

[insert_user_name]

Scratch doesn't let you make sprites bigger than the stage. it clamps the size.
Tiny costumes are used as an exploit to get around this.

• Switch to tiny costume
• Set size to absurdly big number
• Switch back to the costume we were on before the tiny one
• Absurdly huge Scratch Cat

[bluebaritone21]

Scratch doesn't allow sprites to be larger than the size of the stage. However, a 0×0 costume will never take up any space, regardless of the sprite's size. Scratch doesn't enforce the size limit when switching costumes, so a popular loop hole is to switch to a 0×0 costume, set the size to what you want, then switch back to the original one.

EDIT: I've been Ninja'd!