Discuss Scratch
- Discussion Forums
- » Suggestions
- » ≥ and ≤ in operators
![[RSS Feed]](//cdn.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/__74e70580e9dbe93ce1c3f8422dde592d__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]")
![[RSS Feed]](http://cdn.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/__74e70580e9dbe93ce1c3f8422dde592d__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]"){kind=icon}
- Inkulumo
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
No support, the workarounds are too easy, besides, Scratch 3.0 will be in HTML5/Javascript which can detect these blocks.Yup, and extensions.
- Botcho_Otkho
-
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.No support for this. The workaround is not hard.
I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are. - Mewtwo
- -ShadowOfTheFuture-
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
No support, I don't really think the workaround is hard.
<Insert uncreative signature here>
██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██
██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██
███ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███
█████████ █████ █████ █████████
“Though the seasons come and go, and sunshine turns to snow, we will always have tomorrow up ahead.”
- Sairam1265
-
Scratcher
42 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
The workaround is easier so no support from me.
Finished Maze Runner 2
link: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/284068381/
What do you need for Maze Runner 3
Here is the basic changelog:-
- Recreation of all buttons.
- Add all buttons to same Sprite.
- Unlock feature.
- Message feature.
- any else you like to have
- StrangeMagic32
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Support, as I saw stated on pg.2 there are blocks in scratch that, in reality, shouldn't even exist with the mindset, “The workaround is simple enough”.
Thanks
next costume // =And that workaround is simple enough, that the next costume shouldn't exist, but it still does, saying that the workaround is simple doesn't mean that it's not time consuming, all those little times where you would be using Next Costume, just imagine that the next costume doesn't exist, doing the workaround would take a matter of seconds, but those seconds add up into minutes, then hours, then days… So with that said, saying, “The workaround is simple enough” is wasting our lives, because the workarounds small time will add up to be significant enough to the point of no return.
switch costume to ((costume #) + (1))
Thanks
Last edited by StrangeMagic32 (Dec. 31, 2018 17:42:27)
“Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God;”
- Doctrine and Covenants 18:10
I have since moved to @JollyWinter
- Sheep_maker
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Support, as I saw stated on pg.2 there are blocks in scratch that, in reality, shouldn't even exist with the mindset, “The workaround is simple enough”.The general consensus is that as few blocks as possible should be added; the more blocks there are, the more daunting the palette will seem for a new Scratcher.next costume // =And that workaround is simple enough, that the next costume shouldn't exist, but it still does, saying that the workaround is simple doesn't mean that it's not time consuming, all those little times where you would be using Next Costume, just imagine that the next costume doesn't exist, doing the workaround would take a matter of seconds, but those seconds add up into minutes, then hours, then days… So with that said, saying, “The workaround is simple enough” is wasting our lives, because the workarounds small time will add up to be significant enough to the point of no return.
switch costume to ((costume #) + (1))
Thanks
The “next costume” block might've been a quick decision made a long time ago when Scratch was still experimenting with what blocks would work. By then, it's too late to remove it because it would break existing projects. Also, the “next costume” block encourages new Scratchers to want a “previous costume” block, making them figure out a workaround, allowing them to begin developing essential programming skills.
The existing _ < _ and _ > _ blocks also encourage new Scratchers to want to have _ <= _ and _ >= _ blocks as well. It's actually a lot easier to find a workaround for those blocks because it gives the workaround to them when spoken.
Even if the workaround wastes time, it's insignificant.
- Sheep_maker This is a kumquat-free signature. :P
This is my signature. It appears below all my posts. Discuss it on my profile, not the forums. Here's how to make your own.
.postsignature { overflow: auto; } .scratchblocks { overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: hidden; }
- Za-Chary
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I don't know if it's been said already in this thread, but there's an even better workaround for
It's this:
<<[] > []> or <[] = []>>
It's this:
<not <[] < []>>
This is my forum signature! On a forum post, it is okay for Scratchers to advertise in their forum signature. The signature is the stuff that shows up below the horizontal line on the post. It will show up on every post I make.
I was a Scratch Team member from May 10th 2019 to October 29th 2021.
my notebook | scratch team essay | accessibility essay
- StrangeMagic32
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Even if the workaround wastes time, it's insignificant.The wasted time may be insignificant, but many insignificant things add up to be a lot more than you think it'd be.
“Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God;”
- Doctrine and Covenants 18:10
I have since moved to @JollyWinter
- goldfish678
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
as per everyone else, this wouldn't provide much more than a slight convenience, seeing as the workaround is so simple. the new thing I would like to point out here is that for much of Scratch's targeted age demographic, this notation is unfamiliar and may bring up confusion.
that said, it wouldn't be too far out there since we already have trigonometric math operations built in that for many wouldn't be encountered on a normal academic education until high school. thoughts on this?
that said, it wouldn't be too far out there since we already have trigonometric math operations built in that for many wouldn't be encountered on a normal academic education until high school. thoughts on this?
Last edited by goldfish678 (Jan. 1, 2019 02:01:40)
- Sheep_maker
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
as per everyone else, this wouldn't provide much more than a slight convenience, seeing as the workaround is so simple. the new thing I would like to point out here is that for much of Scratch's targeted age demographic, this notation is unfamiliar and may bring up confusion.At least they're all of a single block in the palette.
that said, it wouldn't be too far out there since we already have trigonometric math operations built in that for many wouldn't be encountered on a normal academic education until high school. thoughts on this?
I'd gladly support the idea of the block itself, but not its addition to the palette (it clutters it, makes it more daunting for new Scratchers, and requires more scrolling for everyone else).
As a compromise, perhaps the <= and >= blocks can only be accessed through right clicking a < or > block, like swapping variables through the right click menu. I'm quite sure new Scratchers will still be able to understand those blocks; the X than or equal to symbol is usually taught with the X than operator. However, the way the block is achieved isn't very intuitive,
- Sheep_maker This is a kumquat-free signature. :P
This is my signature. It appears below all my posts. Discuss it on my profile, not the forums. Here's how to make your own.
.postsignature { overflow: auto; } .scratchblocks { overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: hidden; }
- cannonball84
-
Scratcher
58 posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
GUYS JUST DO THIS:
<not <[x] < [y]>>it is the same as
<<[x] = [y]> and <[x] > [y]>>
;
- ResExsention
-
New to Scratch
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
GUYS JUST DO THIS:<not <[x] < [y]>>it is the same as<<[x] = [y]> and <[x] > [y]>>
Wow. That's actually a simple workaround.
No support. Seems messy. I don't want two whole new operators cluttering up the block list.
Infrequently active.
It feels weird to see how far we've come. I hope you're well, wherever you are!
- 45afc4td
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Then again why is the suggestion spelled with symbols like ≤, ≥, ≠. It's <=, >=, !=. You don't see blocks like multiplication * and division / being spelled with × and ÷, or subtraction being spelled with − as opposed to -, or the two-in-one boolean converters being spelled with ∧, ∨ and ¬.
- DoNotFoIIowMe
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
It might be “annoying”, but just using around five blocks isn't going to cause an apocalypse. You can't get everything to be easy for you in coding.
Huh, this is somehow my 100th post.
Huh, this is somehow my 100th post.
Last edited by DoNotFoIIowMe (Nov. 19, 2019 19:16:01)
~DoNotFoIIowMe~
My name is DoNotFoIIowMe (do not follow me or comment on my profile, you!) and I am a New Scratcher willing to help out on the Scratch community. If you see any of my posts, don't think I'm new myself and that I'm not supposed to be teaching you because I have quite a wide knowledge about Scratch. Just so you know though, following me will ruin my life. People have already disobeyed.
- kittiesrule247
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
No, because you can easily do this:
<not <(variable) > [6]>>And stuff like that.
LGBTQIAPNDO+ PRIDE
- coder2045
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
What?! I learned them in kindergarten!No support. Do you really want aOr anyone who hasn't done a high enough math level.[]=>[]::boolean operatorswhen you can just take 2 Blocks and go<not <[] < [ ]>>?
Plus, it would be confusing to new scratchers.
No support as per workarounds.
Has a pretty easy workaround.
And I did not even know about the greater/ less than or equal to sign until in the 2nd sem. of 6th grade!
Highlight this text and press Ctrl-Shift-Down to view more of my signature. There's a lot in there.
I FOUND THE POSTIE POSTIE POST LINK THIS
Brainteaser: What comes next? Answer on my profile. First correct answer gets a follow.
[ ]
[ [ ] ]
[ [ [ ] ] [ ] ]
Good projects ⬇️
- coder2045
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
No support.Just do
<not <[] > []>>
<not <[] < []>>
<not <[] = []>>
Highlight this text and press Ctrl-Shift-Down to view more of my signature. There's a lot in there.
I FOUND THE POSTIE POSTIE POST LINK THIS
Brainteaser: What comes next? Answer on my profile. First correct answer gets a follow.
[ ]
[ [ ] ]
[ [ [ ] ] [ ] ]
Good projects ⬇️
- coder2045
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Then again why is the suggestion spelled with symbols like ≤, ≥, ≠. It's <=, >=, !=. You don't see blocks like multiplication * and division / being spelled with × and ÷, or subtraction being spelled with − as opposed to -, or the two-in-one boolean converters being spelled with ∧, ∨ and ¬.Please don't necropost. (I think.)
P.S. I'm pretty sure WindOctahedron has more info on that, I don't want to type three or four long sentences.
Highlight this text and press Ctrl-Shift-Down to view more of my signature. There's a lot in there.
I FOUND THE POSTIE POSTIE POST LINK THIS
Brainteaser: What comes next? Answer on my profile. First correct answer gets a follow.
[ ]
[ [ ] ]
[ [ [ ] ] [ ] ]
Good projects ⬇️
- DipLeChip
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Suggestions can't be necroposted unless the suggestion is implemented or rejected.Then again why is the suggestion spelled with symbols like ≤, ≥, ≠. It's <=, >=, !=. You don't see blocks like multiplication * and division / being spelled with × and ÷, or subtraction being spelled with − as opposed to -, or the two-in-one boolean converters being spelled with ∧, ∨ and ¬.Please don't necropost. (I think.)
P.S. I'm pretty sure WindOctahedron has more info on that, I don't want to type three or four long sentences.
stop fuming and start loving :p
- mica43683
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
<not <(variable) < [5]>>
<not <(variable) > [5]>>
I got a lot of compliments on my last signature, and I think that's kind of strange. I wrote it when I was 12 and it wasn't very good. I acted like PS4 controllers were the epitome of human technology, for God's sake! I tried too hard to be philosophical, or maybe I tried too hard to be funny, or maybe it was something else. But that signature was bad. It wasn't good. It might be strange for some of you to hear this, seeing as this site is full of kids, but 12-year-old me was practically a baby. I think that's something you realise when you grow up. That you're always better than you were last year. I was looking through old Skype messages between me and a friend of mine from when we were 12, and as I read them, I couldn't stop thinking, “Woah. I was the worst.” It's important to know that you're always the worst. I can almost guarantee that future you is thinking negatively of you right now, just as future me is thinking negatively of me. It's important not to let that get to you. Remember to stay in the present. Tomorrow hates you, but it can't hurt you because you'll never get to tomorrow. When I was 10 or 11, I remember seeing the world very cynically. I thought that human life was inherently selfish, and that we were only put on this planet to destroy it. I'm so glad 10 or 11 year old me is gone, because 17 year old me would NOT get along with that kid.