Discuss Scratch

Photoguy77
Scratcher
100+ 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!

-Photoguy77

“Without enjoying, one will never truly learn” ~Flome

“Finding happiness starts in you” ~ProdigyZeta7

turkey3_test
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Support. Maybe a right-click option instead of a whole new block.

1234abcdcba4321
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Oh! I support!
() ≥ () // category=looks

I'd highly appreciate it if you were to follow me. Don't forget to go to my profile.
All of my programming suggestions <— You should really get the suggestions move back to the suggestions forum!
Five hundred posts! I never expected to get up there… In only 2-3 months.
Does anyone know what a signature is? I mean, I've already seen 6-7 people get confused.
AonymousGuy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Support! This would be such a useful function.

Sidenote: To make the block look like an operators block, add “// category=operators” on the end.
 ((x) ≥ [6]) // category=operators 

Last edited by AonymousGuy (Nov. 24, 2013 22:23:31)

ErnieParke
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Photoguy77 wrote:

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!
You can cut down a block by using:

(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

AonymousGuy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

ErnieParke wrote:

Photoguy77 wrote:

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!
You can cut down a block by using:

(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

Oh yeah… I forgot about the workarounds. Because there is the other one where if you wanted:
 <(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operators 
You could use:
 <(x) < [7]> 
blob8108
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

AonymousGuy wrote:

if you wanted:
 <(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operators 
You could use:
 <(x) < [7]> 
Those aren't the same. If x = 6.5, they will evaluate differently.

tosh · slowly becoming a grown-up adult and very confused about it
NoxSpooth
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Don't support. I don't think the first way is annoying at all. It's actually a very simple workaround.
mathfreak231
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

(not ((something) > (something else)))
like ErnieParke said.

3DS FC: 3239-6065-2543 (Ask me before adding) | AS: Alex~ | X: Alex (DWS)
Ask me on my profile about XYORAS breeding requests!

My browser / operating system: MacOS Macintosh X 10.11.3, Safari 9.0.3, Flash 20.0 (release 0)
MCAnimator3D
Scratcher
500+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Yes, it does sound like a good idea, but instead of this…
<<(var1) = [100]> or <(var1) > [100]>>
…you can just do this
<(var1) > [99]>



Photoguy77
Scratcher
100+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

MCAnimator3D wrote:

Yes, it does sound like a good idea, but instead of this…
<<(var1) = [100]> or <(var1) > [100]>>
…you can just do this
<(var1) > [99]>
Good point, however if you want it to be ≥100 that is not mathematically correct because you are saying if greater than 99 not equal to or greater than 100.

-Photoguy77

“Without enjoying, one will never truly learn” ~Flome

“Finding happiness starts in you” ~ProdigyZeta7

mathfreak231
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

MCAnimator3D wrote:

Yes, it does sound like a good idea, but instead of this…
<<(var1) = [100]> or <(var1) > [100]>>
…you can just do this
<(var1) > [99]>
99.5

:\

3DS FC: 3239-6065-2543 (Ask me before adding) | AS: Alex~ | X: Alex (DWS)
Ask me on my profile about XYORAS breeding requests!

My browser / operating system: MacOS Macintosh X 10.11.3, Safari 9.0.3, Flash 20.0 (release 0)
joefarebrother
Scratcher
500+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

When we get custom reporters we cam make these.


And it was delicious! Play TBGs! Check out my Scheme Interpreter!
;
Photoguy77
Scratcher
100+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Yes, but we don't know if we will even get custom reporters/

joefarebrother wrote:

When we get custom reporters we cam make these.

-Photoguy77

“Without enjoying, one will never truly learn” ~Flome

“Finding happiness starts in you” ~ProdigyZeta7

AonymousGuy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

blob8108 wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

if you wanted:
 <(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operators 
You could use:
 <(x) < [7]> 
Those aren't the same. If x = 6.5, they will evaluate differently.
I know. I knew there was a slight problem with this workaround, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
But, you could do:
 <(x) < [6.00000000000000000000000000001]> 
which would work for most cases (although be a much more difficult workaround then the other one)
Photoguy77
Scratcher
100+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

No, then what about if the number is 00000000000000000000000000002 instead?

AonymousGuy wrote:

blob8108 wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

if you wanted:
 <(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operators 
You could use:
 <(x) < [7]> 
Those aren't the same. If x = 6.5, they will evaluate differently.
I know. I knew there was a slight problem with this workaround, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
But, you could do:
 <(x) < [6.00000000000000000000000000001]> 
which would work for most cases (although be a much more difficult workaround then the other one)

-Photoguy77

“Without enjoying, one will never truly learn” ~Flome

“Finding happiness starts in you” ~ProdigyZeta7

Photoguy77
Scratcher
100+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

mathfreak231 wrote:

MCAnimator3D wrote:

Yes, it does sound like a good idea, but instead of this…
<<(var1) = [100]> or <(var1) > [100]>>
…you can just do this
<(var1) > [99]>
99.5

:\
Ah yes… when I said it is not mathematically correct I was trying to say that.

-Photoguy77

“Without enjoying, one will never truly learn” ~Flome

“Finding happiness starts in you” ~ProdigyZeta7

scratchisthebest
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Guys let's remove the move 10 steps block because there's a workaround.

^ What everyone in this topic seems to think

I am a Lava Expert
AonymousGuy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

Photoguy77 wrote:

No, then what about if the number is 00000000000000000000000000002 instead?

AonymousGuy wrote:

blob8108 wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

if you wanted:
 <(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operators 
You could use:
 <(x) < [7]> 
Those aren't the same. If x = 6.5, they will evaluate differently.
I know. I knew there was a slight problem with this workaround, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
But, you could do:
 <(x) < [6.00000000000000000000000000001]> 
which would work for most cases (although be a much more difficult workaround then the other one)
I said for most cases.
Anyways, other workarounds are better (although they take more blocks )
mitchboy
Scratcher
1000+ posts

≥ and ≤ in operators

scratchisthebest wrote:

Guys let's remove the move 10 steps block because there's a workaround.

^ What everyone in this topic seems to think
that's way harder to work around. it's not like you can work around move 10 steps block using only three blocks.

here, the workaround is logical and everyone should be able to figure out how to work around it. if someone can't, then they're too young to be on scratch. plus, some younger scratchers could be confused by the symbols, so they'd understand the workaround better.

Capsicum annuum.

Powered by DjangoBB

Standard | Mobile