Else output for decider combinator

[quyxkh]

And how do you know that?

This forum is the place to make such arguments. Anybody can check whether what I said is true. If I'm wrong, show the counterexample. Imagining one-combinator versions of sometimes-useful two-combinator gizmos is entertaining but there's an actual *problem* it would solve, you should be able to show an actual build demonstrating the problem.

[Zaflis]

This forum is the place to make such arguments. Anybody can check whether what I said is true. If I'm wrong, show the counterexample. Imagining one-combinator versions of sometimes-useful two-combinator gizmos is entertaining but there's an actual *problem* it would solve, you should be able to show an actual build demonstrating the problem.

Are you just new to programming and code-flows in general? What if the "IF" or "CASE" clauses didn't have else section? Of course there are always awkward workarounds but why try to enforce that kind of bad practises? The goal is to make fancy constructs, not try to program in binary... If it's easier it's only a good thing, and as far as speculation goes it would only improve UPS to achieve same goals.

[aka13]

Well, if we start with else, what about switches then?
If we have elseif or switches, we will start with programmable combinators, etc.
I'd honestly say that I certainly enjoy the puzzles the way they are now.

[CheeseMcBurger]

This forum is the place to make such arguments. Anybody can check whether what I said is true. If I'm wrong, show the counterexample.

Making wild, unfounded claims and then putting the effort to prove you wrong on the other person is not how you make an argument. It's absurd.

[quyxkh]

This forum is the place to make such arguments. Anybody can check whether what I said is true. If I'm wrong, show the counterexample.

Making wild, unfounded claims and then putting the effort to prove you wrong on the other person is not how you make an argument. It's absurd.

By that logic, "there are no actual mermaids, anybody can check whether what I said is true. If I'm wrong, show the counterexample" is an even more wildly unfounded claim. Clearly, my claim is absurd. I'm demanding you plumb the depths of the Seven Seas plus Lake Okeechobee to disprove it. Also: Lake Michigan and the Bering Strait.

I'm not the one arguing for change. Arguing that someone else should do a lot of work to implement a change, in my world, requires showing up at least with concrete supporting evidence. "concrete". "supporting". Hence, "foundation". Show up with a blueprint of a substantial build people want to use in a real map, that'd qualify as a foundation.

[Zaflis]

It's really difficult to think of way to even present an example. You can't make a blueprint ingame because the UI doesn't have else and how do you figure out a smart written format? I guess some typical examples involve finding lowest or highest number out of many values.

If you have A, B, C, D and want to get highest, it goes through 3 combinators if else is allowed:
A > B, output O1 (either A or B)
O1 > C, output O2 (either O1 or C)
O2 > D, output O3 (either O2 or D)

What about in current game?
A > %"#¤"#¤ ... Yeah i'm not going to solve that with what we have. And honestly i don't care too much with what you come up with, if you are always going to spend an hour with it everytime you need the combinators, gl.

Edit: Typo, A1 = O1 etc.

[ssilk]

You can't make a blueprint ingame because the UI doesn't have else

As explained you can always describe the else by using two combinators. I’m sure we can understand that. If unsure you can give those pairs a different underground, or something like that.

To your example:

If you have A, B, C, D and want to get highest, it goes through 3 combinators if else is allowed:
A > B, output O1 (either A or B)
A1 > C, output O2 (either O1 or C)
A2 > D, output O3 (either O2 or D)

I’m not sure what signals A1 and A2 should be. Well I’m nearly sure you mean the output of the former combinator (O1 instead A1). At the same time writing it down like this is quite theoretical, it makes things easier if you provide pic and eventually blueprint. And what I also want to know what should be done with that? Which problem should be solved?

[coppercoil]

Six combinators for highest signal still is a very small setup, no?
Current "else" calculation definitely is not the hardest thing for circuit setups.

[Zaflis]

For consistency this seems like simplest way to do it in current (And no, i don't think it's simple. That's 4 values, what if it's 400? Difference between 399 and 798 combinators is huge):
{
A >= B, output O1=A
A < B, output O1=B
}
{
O1 >= C, output O2=O1
O1 < C, output O2=C
}
{
O2 >= D, output O3=O2
O2 < D, output O3=D
}

Like i have said maybe many times before, i think it is important to make small efforts to make circuits more approachable to people. There's a fine line between "circuits are easy to use" and "circuits are only for the hardcore engineers", and right now it's leaning too much on the hardcore side.

[ssilk]

Again: what would be the normal use case of this comparator? What problem will you solve?

And what would be the use case for 400 signals? (I think that’s much more than in vanilla possible)

Be more specific.

[disentius]

@Zaflis:
Your example is solved by the hardcore engineers here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalfacto ... ial_logic/