# Thread: >= Nano Trivia <= , or is it?

1. ## Re: >= Nano Trivia <= , or is it?

Originally Posted by rleunis
You stated: "The point of my question is the implementation of the combined operands ">=" and "<="."

So I thought you did not like combined operands...

That's why I gave you an alternative solution...
Not that I don't like "Combined" operands, it's the redundency of it. At what point somebody's brain says I will look for anything "more than" L vs I will look for anything "More than or equal to" M?
Originally Posted by rleunis
The restriction of an integer of 1 was not part of the original post, I think...
The thread is not all about ">=" when it comes to numerics only nor there are restrictions to integers only. That part was only in response to the example in your post. I already spent plenty enough time stating, use the value immediately before the one you are testing for. Doesn't have to be integer, but some brave soul ventured into infinity which took this discussion on a big detour that didn't have to happen as infinity has no place here.
I am not sure if I am speaking Greek? Which part of this people are having trouble understanding?
At what point your brain decides that you've got to use ">=" while you could simply and have many times used ">"? Just for simplicity 's sake, answer this question for me if you can:
What compels someone to say >=M instead of >L?
Can you answer that? Do you have to use .not.<M?
Originally Posted by rleunis
Anyway it does not change my post and validity of it, I think.
No.. I am sorry because now you are back in the same arena as ">=" where alpha has to do the double check:
<10
and
.not.
You might as well stick with ">=".

2. ## Re: >= Nano Trivia <= , or is it?

"What compels someone to say >=M instead of >L?
Can you answer that? Do you have to use .not.<M?
"
Real live example:
Suppose you are looking for a partner.
And one of the criteria is:
He or she is at least as big as me?
You are referencing your own height, so you would be looking for a partner which is equal or greater than you.
Or you would be looking for someone not smaller than yourself.
I suppose you would not be looking for someone greater than yourself minus 1 (or what ever other increment)...
would you?
It's all about what are you referencing to.

3. ## Re: >= Nano Trivia <= , or is it?

What compels someone to say >=M instead of >L?
Simple. When the possibility exists that a value being tested will be less than M but greater than L ... and you don't want anything less than M.

4. ## Re: >= Nano Trivia <= , or is it?

>= is essential when evaluating a date. If a user is required to enter a 'date from' and then 'date to', you must use >= to if the 'date to' includes the 'date from' in its equation as a valid date. This is releavant to most calander type activities based on days or time. A days sick leave can be entered as 'from today' - 'to today' giving a value of 1 day off sick.

You will always need to reflect on input of at least two dates, the only way that make this > only is to change the way a user operates and actually thinks about dates and time. Using the arguments in this thread, the user would need to enter >yesterday in the 'date from' and <tomorrow in the 'date to', to achieve a value of today. Illogical thought process to most

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•