"Touching sprite" block behavior with clones?

In Scratch, the “touching (sprite)” block will return true if the current sprite is touching the other sprite or any of its clones. In scratch-js, it only returns true if it’s touching the original sprite.

I think a good solution would be to retain the current behavior if you pass a sprite instance to touching(), but to use Scratch’s behavior if you pass the sprite’s base class. I’d like to get your opinion on it.

[towerofnix]

I’m pretty strongly in favor of the first idea there! It lets you easily access a sprite and its clones together, which, thanks to treating sprites as first-class objects, is good for more complex programming concepts not easily possible in Scratch.

In order to match Scratch behavior without introducing more complex syntax, we would probably want to make andClones return the sprite as well as any of the clones made of it, and any clones of those clones themselves. (But, if you do (a clone).andClones(), not clones of the parent/original sprite, IMO, since if you wanted to do that you’d just access the original object directly (this.sprites.whatever).)

[PullJosh]

• Allow passing an array of instances. Could also give sprites a .andClones() method so you can do if (this.touching(this.sprites.sprite2.andClones())

.andClones() now exists (see #32), so we can move ahead with this.

There are basically two things that need to happen:

1. Update the touching block to accept an array of instances (or a single instance)
2. Update sb-edit to include .andClones() in all uses of the touching block