Discuss Scratch
- Discussion Forums
- » Suggestions
- » ≥ and ≤ in operators
![[RSS Feed]](//cdn.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/__5b3e40ec58a840b41702360e9891321b__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]")
![[RSS Feed]](http://cdn.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/__5b3e40ec58a840b41702360e9891321b__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]"){kind=icon}
- theoW1200
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
there is a way to workaround the move 10 steps blockngl why did scratch add the move steps block if there is a workaroundgo to x: ((x position) + (([sin v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps))) y: ((y position) + (([cos v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps)))and yes the reason of the goto block and not just change by blocks is to make it so pen doesnt draw it as a step
- Sussy_Test
-
Scratcher
91 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
because move 10 steps block was a block made back in Scratch 0.xthere is a way to workaround the move 10 steps blockngl why did scratch add the move steps block if there is a workaroundgo to x: ((x position) + (([sin v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps))) y: ((y position) + (([cos v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps)))and yes the reason of the goto block and not just change by blocks is to make it so pen doesnt draw it as a step
- CodeComet6161
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I learned them (not part of my life)th grade, but knew them in 2nd.personally wouldn't support, the workaround is too simple. Besides, it may confuse some people.It most definitely would NOT confuse people. I learned about these symbols in 1st grade. I nor anybody else I remember had a problem with them. And, if they did, this block might help them learn.
- Birdcloud22
-
Scratcher
24 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Personally, I think it is very annoying to have to do this:<<(this is the bad way) = (6)> or <(this is the bad way) > (6)>so why not do this…<(this is the good way) ≥ (6)>I hope you agree!
support this!!!!
- CodeComet6161
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Please give a reason why you support.Personally, I think it is very annoying to have to do this:<<(this is the bad way) = (6)> or <(this is the bad way) > (6)>so why not do this…<(this is the good way) ≥ (6)>I hope you agree!
support this!!!!
- theoW1200
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
yeah but why was it made if there is a workaroundbecause move 10 steps block was a block made back in Scratch 0.xthere is a way to workaround the move 10 steps blockngl why did scratch add the move steps block if there is a workaroundgo to x: ((x position) + (([sin v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps))) y: ((y position) + (([cos v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps)))and yes the reason of the goto block and not just change by blocks is to make it so pen doesnt draw it as a step
- unknown2467
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
The workaround is way too complex for new scratchers.yeah but why was it made if there is a workaroundbecause move 10 steps block was a block made back in Scratch 0.xthere is a way to workaround the move 10 steps blockngl why did scratch add the move steps block if there is a workaroundgo to x: ((x position) + (([sin v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps))) y: ((y position) + (([cos v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps)))and yes the reason of the goto block and not just change by blocks is to make it so pen doesnt draw it as a step
- TheNoisyNoisy
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
there wasn't at firstthere is a way to workaround the move 10 steps blockngl why did scratch add the move steps block if there is a workaroundgo to x: ((x position) + (([sin v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps))) y: ((y position) + (([cos v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps)))and yes the reason of the goto block and not just change by blocks is to make it so pen doesnt draw it as a step
- s_123_345_4REAL
-
Scratcher
47 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Personally, I think it is very annoying to have to do this:<<(this is the bad way) = (6)> or <(this is the bad way) > (6)>so why not do this…<(this is the good way) ≥ (6)>I hope you agree!
I support the idea, because the workaround is just tedious. I have a better idea though:
Combine all of the comparing blocks into one and use a dropdown, and include the ≠ sign too, like this:
<[] [> v] [] :: operators>(these are all the same block, but it uses a dropdown)
<[] [= v] [] :: operators>
<[] [< v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≥ v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≠ v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≤ v] [] :: operators>
- medians
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I feel like bringing block switching would be a better idea, as it would make the block easier to drag in Scratch 3.0 at least, and it also takes up less space in the code.<[] [> v] [] :: operators>(these are all the same block, but it uses a dropdown)
<[] [= v] [] :: operators>
<[] [< v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≥ v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≠ v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≤ v] [] :: operators>
If you're wondering what I mean, in 1.x and 2.0, you could right click certain blocks to swap them to other related blocks:
This still exists for variables and list names, but not other blocks.
- theoW1200
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
why not remove itthere wasn't at firstthere is a way to workaround the move 10 steps blockngl why did scratch add the move steps block if there is a workaroundgo to x: ((x position) + (([sin v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps))) y: ((y position) + (([cos v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps)))and yes the reason of the goto block and not just change by blocks is to make it so pen doesnt draw it as a step
- ywc2
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
It would break existing projects.why not remove itthere wasn't at firstthere is a way to workaround the move 10 steps blockngl why did scratch add the move steps block if there is a workaroundgo to x: ((x position) + (([sin v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps))) y: ((y position) + (([cos v] of (direction)::operators) * (steps)))and yes the reason of the goto block and not just change by blocks is to make it so pen doesnt draw it as a step
We should probably orient ourselves back towards the original suggestion instead of this.
- Imtwentytenth
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
<(variable) > ((number) - (1))>
Last edited by Imtwentytenth (Sept. 14, 2025 18:36:43)
- zbsmobile
-
Scratcher
72 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Personally, I think it is very annoying to have to do this:<<(this is the bad way) = (6)> or <(this is the bad way) > (6)>so why not do this…<(this is the good way) ≥ (6)>I hope you agree!
I support the idea, because the workaround is just tedious. I have a better idea though:
Combine all of the comparing blocks into one and use a dropdown, and include the ≠ sign too, like this:<[] [> v] [] :: operators>(these are all the same block, but it uses a dropdown)
<[] [= v] [] :: operators>
<[] [< v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≥ v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≠ v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≤ v] [] :: operators>
Support
- medians
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Are you suggesting a workaround? What if there are decimals involved?<(variable) > ((number) - (1))>
- Scratch_NT
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I am sorry, but no support.
I get the idea and why it would make your scripts a little shorter, however there is not only a workaround but also it is SUPER obvious and anybody in the age Scratch is adressing would come up with it.
Also, in case, why not just define a new block?
I get the idea and why it would make your scripts a little shorter, however there is not only a workaround but also it is SUPER obvious and anybody in the age Scratch is adressing would come up with it.
Also, in case, why not just define a new block?
- sillyNate
-
Scratcher
67 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I feel like this is so not important. It takes, what, 3 extra seconds to get the workaround?
That being said, I do wish more blocks had a dropdown menu, like the show/hide blocks or set x/y to blocks.
That being said, I do wish more blocks had a dropdown menu, like the show/hide blocks or set x/y to blocks.
- Doomlord305
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I agree. you can easily replace it.Personally, I think it is very annoying to have to do this:You can cut down a block by using:<<(this is the bad way) = (6)> or <(this is the bad way) > (6)>so why not do this…<(this is the good way) ≥ (6)>I hope you agree!(not ((something) > (something else)))
Anyway, I don't support due to it's easy replication. Besides, it'd keep the operators tab a bit clearer.
My thoughts,
ErnieParke
but, then again. scratch added the play sound until block when you could just do this.
play sound [ ... v]
wait (look at the sound length in the sound tab and put that in as the wait number) secs
- Doomlord305
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
This on the other hand, would save me time when I accidentally use the wrong one.Personally, I think it is very annoying to have to do this:<<(this is the bad way) = (6)> or <(this is the bad way) > (6)>so why not do this…<(this is the good way) ≥ (6)>I hope you agree!
I support the idea, because the workaround is just tedious. I have a better idea though:
Combine all of the comparing blocks into one and use a dropdown, and include the ≠ sign too, like this:<[] [> v] [] :: operators>(these are all the same block, but it uses a dropdown)
<[] [= v] [] :: operators>
<[] [< v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≥ v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≠ v] [] :: operators>
<[] [≤ v] [] :: operators>
- Discussion Forums
- » Suggestions
-
» ≥ and ≤ in operators