Discuss Scratch
![[RSS Feed]](http://mv-ezproxy-com.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/scratchr2/static/__35b9adb704d6d778f00a893a1b104339__//djangobb_forum/img/feed-icon-small.png "[RSS Feed]"){kind=icon}
- 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!
- turkey3_test
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Support. Maybe a right-click option instead of a whole new block.
- 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.
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
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
- AonymousGuy
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
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
Oh yeah… I forgot about the workarounds. Because there is the other one where if you wanted:
<(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operatorsYou could use:
<(x) < [7]>
- blob8108
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
if you wanted:Those aren't the same. If x = 6.5, they will evaluate differently.<(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operatorsYou could use:<(x) < [7]>
- 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.
- 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
Yes, it does sound like a good idea, but instead of this…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.<<(var1) = [100]> or <(var1) > [100]>>…you can just do this<(var1) > [99]>
- mathfreak231
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Yes, it does sound like a good idea, but instead of this…99.5<<(var1) = [100]> or <(var1) > [100]>>…you can just do this<(var1) > [99]>
:\
- joefarebrother
-
Scratcher
500+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
When we get custom reporters we cam make these.
- Photoguy77
-
Scratcher
100+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Yes, but we don't know if we will even get custom reporters/
When we get custom reporters we cam make these.
- AonymousGuy
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
I know. I knew there was a slight problem with this workaround, but I couldn't put my finger on it.if you wanted:Those aren't the same. If x = 6.5, they will evaluate differently.<(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operatorsYou could use:<(x) < [7]>
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?
I know. I knew there was a slight problem with this workaround, but I couldn't put my finger on it.if you wanted:Those aren't the same. If x = 6.5, they will evaluate differently.<(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operatorsYou could use:<(x) < [7]>
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
Ah yes… when I said it is not mathematically correct I was trying to say that.Yes, it does sound like a good idea, but instead of this…99.5<<(var1) = [100]> or <(var1) > [100]>>…you can just do this<(var1) > [99]>
:\
- 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
^ What everyone in this topic seems to think
- AonymousGuy
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
No, then what about if the number is 00000000000000000000000000002 instead?I said for most cases.I know. I knew there was a slight problem with this workaround, but I couldn't put my finger on it.if you wanted:Those aren't the same. If x = 6.5, they will evaluate differently.<(x) ≥ [6]> // category=operatorsYou could use:<(x) < [7]>
But, you could do:<(x) < [6.00000000000000000000000000001]>which would work for most cases (although be a much more difficult workaround then the other one)
Anyways, other workarounds are better (although they take more blocks
)- mitchboy
-
Scratcher
1000+ posts
≥ and ≤ in operators
Guys let's remove the move 10 steps block because there's a workaround.that's way harder to work around. it's not like you can work around move 10 steps block using only three blocks.
^ What everyone in this topic seems to think
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.