It would have the current operator blocks but it would look like this

<(number)[= v](number)::operators>
<(number)[> v](number)::operators>
<(number)[< v](number)::operators>

But it would also have these

<(number)[≠ v](number)::operators>
<(number)[≥ v](number)::operators>
<(number)[≤ v](number)::operators>

Also this

(()to the power of()::operators)

I know there are easy workarounds to the comparison blocks I suggested but there are a lot of blocks that have easy work arounds such as the forever blocks last backdrop block random backdrop block change variable by and change size by

for the 5 and 6th blocks you can use

<<[number] > [number]> or <[number] = [number]>>

and

<<[number] < [number]> or <[number] = [number]>>

for the 4th block you can use

if <[number] = [number]> then 
do what you do
  

else
do something else
end

SockAlternative wrote:

for the 5 and 6th blocks you can use

<<[number] > [number]> or <[number] = [number]>>

and

<<[number] < [number]> or <[number] = [number]>>

Even better:

<not <[number] < [number]>>

and

<not <[number] > [number]>>

for >= and <= respectively.

in my edited forum post I said that there are many blocks that have simple workarounds so I don’t see why you couldn’t t add these(btw I already new the workarounds I just think it would be nice to have)

The last three (!=, <=, >=) have such simple workarounds that I feel like implementing them removes some of the problem solving aspect of Scratch.

Anyways, in the suggestions forum we like to keep this nice and neat with only one topic for each suggestion. Your suggestions have all been suggested before, so feel free to leave your thoughts at the respective links below as this topic will be closed.

Greater/Less Than or Equal To - https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/21165

Not Equal To - https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/731066

Exponents - https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/2860

The first three blocks are definitely a duplicate as well but I am unable to find it.

Either way, please don't create lists of suggestions.

My suggestion was adding more math blocks the blocks I listed relate to that suggestion which is adding more math blocks and there fore a single suggestion and like I said there are many blocks with simple workarounds like the forever loop has

repeat (infinity)
end

and

repeat until <(1) = (2)::operators> 
end

the change variable by has the

[set variable to ((variable) - (2)::operators)]

or whatever you need to change it by
and the next costume block has

[switch costume to ((costume::looks) + (1)::operators)]::looks

so I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t add these and what about the exponent block there isn’t a simple
workaround for that so I don’t see anything wrong with this suggestion

Ultracoder1010 wrote:

(#7)
My suggestion was adding more math blocks the blocks I listed relate to that suggestion which is adding more math blocks and there fore a single suggestion and like I said there are many blocks with simple workarounds like the forever loop has repeat infinity and repeat until 1 = 2 the change variable by has the set variable to variable - 2 or whatever you need to change it by and the next costume block has switch costume to costume + 1 so I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t add these and what about the exponent block there isn’t a simple workaround for that so I don’t see anything wrong with this suggestion

Some of these are duplicates, so they already have a topic. You are welcome to create a topic for the specific ones with dropdowns until we find it's duplicate.

Please create a separate topic for each suggestion you have, rather than creating a list of suggestions. That way, the conversation stays focused and each idea can get the attention it needs.

Before making a new topic, please check out the following:

• The Official List of Rejected Suggestions. If your suggestion is in this list, please do not make a new topic about it, as it will not be implemented anyway.
  
  
• The Suggestions Directory. If your suggestion is in this list, please continue the discussion in the existing topic, rather than making a new topic.
  

Thank you!