<if [ ] is between [] and [ ]>

This Boolean sensor would read true if the first value is greater than the lesser of the two subsequent values, but lesser than the greater of the following values. In short, it would be true if the first value is numerically between the latter two inputs. It would be very useful in creating various types of sensors for use in games, simulations, etc. I, myself, am working on a game where this would be useful, as I have gotten to a point where the arbitrary assortment of ‘less than’s and ‘greater than’s is just too great for any sense to be made of the script.

.

you mean:

?
Yeah I support

The “if” at the front is unnecessary text that confuses the purpose of this block.

I support this idea, but want the block's starting if removed, making it

if([] is between [] and [] ::operators)

or

wait until <[] is between [] and [] ::operators>

or wherever you decide to put it instead.

EDIT: I suppose I should explain myself better:

<[] is between [] and [] ::operators>

is what I want the block to be called if it was to be added. Edited the above use the new notation. (Agree with post below this one.)

A-no-meep wrote:

The “if” at the front is unnecessary text that confuses the purpose of this block.

I support this idea, but want the block's starting if removed, making it

if([] between [] and [] ::operators)

or

wait until <[] between [] and [] ::operators>

or wherever you decide to put it instead.

It is suppost to be a boolean, It should be called
() is between () and ()?

No support. It is simple to work around, complex, and not very useful.

No support, the workaround is really easy and obvious.

No support. The workaround is super easy.

What's the use of the block? The workaround is simple:


The block does a lot for just a small thing. Why do we need that block anyways?

EDIT: In my opinion, no support.

When it's exactly the maximum or the minimum, what does it return? I don't think that we really need that block, so no support.

I don't support it, I think (in my opinion) its a lot of work for such a small thing. The workaround may be a little hassle but adding the block would be even more hassle on the Scratch Team's part. It is simple to work around, complex, and not very useful.

LostLittleChick738 wrote:

<snip>

Please, don't necropost. What you said was already covered in the posts above yours.

HTML-Fan wrote:

When it's exactly the maximum or the minimum, what does it return?

I agree that this is one of this suggestion's problems. By using the workaround, one could make this script work as desired.

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

By using the workaround, one could make this script work as desired.

I just say: do {} or {} and <()mod()>

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

LostLittleChick738 wrote:

<snip>

Please, don't necropost.

I think there's no necroposts in the Suggestions sub-forum as the suggestion won't be outdated.

Byron_Inc wrote:

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

LostLittleChick738 wrote:

<snip>

Please, don't necropost.

I think there's no necroposts in the Suggestions sub-forum as the suggestion won't be outdated.

Exactly! Its not nectroposting unless the forum is meant to be closed but the ST haven't got round to it yet. I think well know users in the forum should have the option to close things.

Byron_Inc wrote:

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

LostLittleChick738 wrote:

<snip>

Please, don't necropost.

I think there's no necroposts in the Suggestions sub-forum as the suggestion won't be outdated.

The post pointed out a workaroud that was already stated above. That is unconstructive and is thus considered necroposting.

Bring
Up
My
Post

johndeere47 wrote:

Support for this, the workaround as shown below is kinda tiring.

<<[3] > [1]> and <<[3] < [5]>

exactly!
support

workaround:

if <<[] > [] :: operators> and <not <[] > []> :: operators> :: operators> then
do something :: grey
end :: control

-An_Unnamed_User- wrote:

workaround:

if <<[] > [] :: operators> and <not <[] > []> :: operators> :: operators> then
do something :: grey
end :: control

But it could still be sort of confusing, I was trying to make a project earlier but while I was using this workaround, I just couldn't figure it out!