dhuls wrote:

wvj wrote:

No support, easy workaround
However, I would support these blocks (the workaround for them is very long):

<[] ≤ []::operators>
<[] ≥ []::operators>

There are two workarounds and in my opinion, they are very easy.

<not <[] < []>>
<not <[] > []>> // or
<<[] = []> and <[] < []>>
<<[] = []> and <[] > []>>

FYI, it's greater than or equal to, not greater than and equal to.

han614698 wrote:

dhuls wrote:

wvj wrote:

No support, easy workaround
However, I would support these blocks (the workaround for them is very long):

<[] ≤ []::operators>
<[] ≥ []::operators>

There are two workarounds and in my opinion, they are very easy.

<not <[] < []>>
<not <[] > []>> // or
<<[] = []> and <[] < []>>
<<[] = []> and <[] > []>>

FYI, it's greater than or equal to, not greater than and equal to.

fixed.

Za-Chary wrote:

wvj wrote:

No support, easy workaround
However, I would support these blocks (the workaround for them is very long):

<[] ≤ []::operators>
<[] ≥ []::operators>

The workarounds are just as long as the “not equals” block:

<not <[] > []>> // Less than or equal to

<not <[] < []>> // Greater than or equal to

i'm surprised you didn't close this

AnAccount_StopAsking wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

wvj wrote:

No support, easy workaround
However, I would support these blocks (the workaround for them is very long):

<[] ≤ []::operators>
<[] ≥ []::operators>

The workarounds are just as long as the “not equals” block:

<not <[] > []>> // Less than or equal to

<not <[] < []>> // Greater than or equal to

i'm surprised you didn't close this

Because he didn't want to close it. He didn't officially reject it, so it will stay open.

Several users wrote:

No support, easy workaround:

<not <[] = []>>

Read #6 of this topic.

Za-Chary wrote:

wvj wrote:

No support, easy workaround
However, I would support these blocks (the workaround for them is very long):

<[] ≤ []::operators>
<[] ≥ []::operators>

The workarounds are just as long as the “not equals” block:

<not <[] > []>> // Less than or equal to

<not <[] < []>> // Greater than or equal to

Uh…I believe that would be

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>
or same thing with > symbol.

Queer_Royalty wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

wvj wrote:

No support, easy workaround
However, I would support these blocks (the workaround for them is very long):

<[] ≤ []::operators>
<[] ≥ []::operators>

The workarounds are just as long as the “not equals” block:

<not <[] > []>> // Less than or equal to

<not <[] < []>> // Greater than or equal to

Uh…I believe that would be

<<[] < []> or <[] = []>>
or same thing with > symbol.

Both ways work.

(Sorry for being salty) If you support this, you must have a day-old account. It's just two blocks for the same purpose.

No support.

Unnessescary, but could be implemented to improve quality of life.
If this is added, along with other suggested blocks with workarounds (eg. string manipulation, forever if), there could be too many blocks in each category and any sane person would hate scrolling. A possible solution could be at add more categories and/or implement subcategories, or separate ‘advanced’ blocks into an extension.

Paddle2See wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

MDCCCLXVII wrote:

Such blocks will not be added because of very easy workarounds (this includes the rejected forever if block).

Note that the “forever if” block was removed because it was confusing, not because it had an easy workaround.

Which is also a potential reason why it might get added some day - it is clearly confusing to some Scratchers that the block does not exist. The fact that there are workarounds is not necessarily a reason to reject.

But this is a bit too easy, it is a 2 block workaround which is extremely simple. Sure, if it is a helpful block that requires custom blocks + variables and a long script to workaround, then sure, but this is to simple to be an effective block.

fdreerf wrote:

hide list [... v] twice ::list

That block is completely useless and why twice?

Support. Even if the workaround is easy, people would use this block a lot.

EatNYeet wrote:

Several users wrote:

No support, easy workaround:

<not <[] = []>>

Read #6 of this topic.

ah yes two blocks are totally challenging

No support. It's so simple to make this, and honestly there is no reason to add this

samq64 wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

hide list [... v] twice ::list

That block is completely useless and why twice?

Because having two hide list blocks together is one of the 5900 or so combinations of two blocks together. The point is that workarounds are valid reasons to not have a block, as every combination of blocks can be made into one.

fdreerf wrote:

(#54)

samq64 wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

hide list [... v] twice ::list

That block is completely useless and why twice?

Because having two hide list blocks together is one of the 5900 or so combinations of two blocks together. The point is that workarounds are valid reasons to not have a block, as every combination of blocks can be made into one.

Legibility matters. This is such a common function.

snap has this so clearly there was enough demand

No Support.

Workaround

<not <[foo] = [foo]>

Captain-Doggo wrote:

(#58)
Workaround

<not <[foo] = [foo]>

I think it's obvious.

Semi support because work-around is very simple