Is there no way to create the <() contains ()> block?

[redspacecat]

When doing:

if item in list {
    ...
}

I would've assumed goboscript would create the <() contains ()> block.
Instead, it just uses the (item # of () in ()) block.
While that does seem to work, I'm wondering why not use the contains block? Is there any way to use it?

[linear]

GS-288

[faretek1]

afaik there is no way right now

so far this is intended behavior and it does work although whether you consider this good behavior is up to you

[redspacecat]

afaik there is no way right now

so far this is intended behavior and it does work although whether you consider this good behavior is up to you

I guess I wouldn't consider it particularly great behavior since using the contains block would make it clearer what's going on. I also somewhat prefer to minimize use of putting (reporter) blocks in <boolean> sockets as it seems like something Scratch might forget about in the future if updating the editor and break support., although that probably wouldn't happen.

[aspizu]

this problem is actually the other way around, the in operator is supposed to emit the contains block but there was no syntax to emit the item # of block, so I essentially merged them into one. and now i cannot undo this decision as its a breaking change. what I can do is detect if the index is being used in a boolean input and automatically emit a contains block for readability, heuristics..

[redspacecat]

this problem is actually the other way around, the in operator is supposed to emit the contains block but there was no syntax to emit the item # of block, so I essentially merged them into one. and now i cannot undo this decision as its a breaking change. what I can do is detect if the index is being used in a boolean input and automatically emit a contains block for readability, heuristics..

That would be good, although how would you be able to figure out which to emit? I presume you would check if it's in something like an if statement, but then how would you use item # instead if wanted?

My idea would be to have different syntax for making a contains block, maybe list has item or similar.

[aspizu]

in if stmts both behave the exact same way so it doesn't matter

[redspacecat]

So if item in list would create a contains block.
and say item in list would create an item # block.

But what about if (item in list) == 2? What if someone wanted to check if an item was in a certain position in a list? It seems like they wouldn't behave the same way here.

[aspizu]

but in the case of (item in list) == 2 ur putting it inside a non-boolean input

[faretek1]

Booleans reporters can be used as regular reporters

Item # in list and item [i] of list are special and can also be used as boolean reporters for some reason

Imo the two item in list blocks should have different syntax. Since some cases could exist where e.g. you're adding boolean values. I want true + true = 2, not (somerandomindrx) +(somotherindex) =3742069