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}
- new_yoshi_641598
-
Scratcher
42 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!
huh I believe the work around for previous costume is annoying too also I support
- 2357895
-
Scratcher
58 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Wouldn't
Work in the place of
(EDIT) I ran a quick test in the editor and it seems to work.
<not <(foo) < [50]>>
Work in the place of
<(foo) Greater than or = [50]>
(EDIT) I ran a quick test in the editor and it seems to work.
Last edited by 2357895 (Oct. 6, 2025 15:09:34)
- FWGcats
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Wouldn'tyes, that is the workaround (was about to say it myself)<not <(foo) < [50]>>
Work in the place of<(foo) Greater than or = [50]>
(EDIT) I ran a quick test in the editor and it seems to work.
no support due to the simple workaround
- SMG4fan7236
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Workaround:
<<[x] > [3]> or <[x] = [3]>>and
<<[x] < [3]> or <[x] = [3]>>This workaround is easy. No Support.
Last edited by SMG4fan7236 (Oct. 6, 2025 16:21:30)
- FreshTheCat
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I think that having
Sorry if someone's already suggested this.
I'd post the source code but for some reason it doesn't work
<(7)[>= v](2) :: operators>with <, = and > also in the drop-down would be better
<(0)[<= v](5) :: operators>
Sorry if someone's already suggested this.
I'd post the source code but for some reason it doesn't work
Last edited by FreshTheCat (Oct. 6, 2025 16:55:52)
- MagicCoder330
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
The workaround to this is simple but rather tedious to do several times. This seems like it would be a good suggestion, if only to save time.
- Imtwentytenth
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
1. Yes, this is a workaroundAre you suggesting a workaround? What if there are decimals involved?<(variable) > ((number) - (1))>
2. What are decimals
- SMG4fan7236
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Example: 4.77471. Yes, this is a workaroundAre you suggesting a workaround? What if there are decimals involved?<(variable) > ((number) - (1))>
2. What are decimals
- enochx-school
-
Scratcher
6 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
no support. easy workaround this is why the forever if <> block was removed
- wisekid333
-
Scratcher
2 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I wish you could do that, although the top “Bad way” still works fine.
Last edited by wisekid333 (Nov. 12, 2025 13:09:41)
- FreshTheCat
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
no support. easy workaround this is why the forever if <> block was removedThe
forever if <>{
} ::control capblock was removed because it was considered too hard to understand. True, the fact that it had an easy workaround also contributed, but it wasn't the main reason it was removedwhy does everyone insist on no supporting block just because it has an easy workaround? With this, it's still annoying to constantly drag the
<<> or <>>and your variable twice every time you want a <=
<[] < []>
<[] = []>
- Discussion Forums
- » Suggestions
-
» ≥ and ≤ in operators