Greater than, less than or less than, greater than?

[mkstevo]

Here's my contribution to daftest question of the week.

When testing a value to see if it is greater than, or less than a limit I'd write...

Less than:

If Value < Limit Then
    Code here...
End If

For greater than:

If Value > Limit Then
     Code here...
End If

If I want to test for a value that is Less than or equal to:

If Value <= Limit Then
    Code here...
End If

But should that be:

If Value =< Limit Then
    Code here...
End If

Likewise, should I write:

If Value >= Limit Then
    Code here...
End If

Or:

If Value => Limit Then
    Code here...
End If

Then for something this is not equal to a given value I tend to use:

If Value <> Limit Then
    Code here...
End If

Alternatively could I (should I) use:

If Value != Limit Then
    Code here...
End If

Or...

If Value ! Limit Then
    Code here...
End If

Does any of this matter to GCB or will I end up with the same results?

[Anobium]

Great questions....

"=>" the same as ">=" and is "}"
"=<" the same as "=<" and is "{"
"<>" the same as "~"

[Hugh Considine]

The single character operators are a bit of a trick used to make part of the compiler slightly simpler. I was very inexperienced when I wrote the code that handles equations, and decided that things could be kept simpler if all operators were a single character. Because ~, { and } have no other meaning to the compiler, those were what I used for <>, <= and >=.
If that part of the compiler gets a rewrite at any point in the future, the single character versions could disappear, so please use <>, <= and >= (as you would in QBASIC or FreeBASIC).

(We can probably keep =< though, I don't think that has any other meaning in any other BASIC dialect?)

[mkstevo]

So I can continue with my "preferred"
">="
and
"=<"
without issues.

I don't think I'd enjoy the "{" , "}" versions. I would be forever worried about seeing unmatched opening/closing braces. I'd have to add another nearby and close them...

The "~" wouldn't offend me in the same way, but it might well confuse me. As I've been happily using "<>" for decades, I think I'll stick with that.

I woke up this morning, thinking of some code I was going to write, and it had been worrying me in my sleep whether it was "<=" or "=<". Then of course I wondered if I'd been using the wrong one. At least there is no wrong one.

The relief, phew! I'll hopefully not be waking up in a cold sweat early tomorrow morning.

[mkstevo]

So please use <>, <= and >= (as you would in QBASIC or FreeBASIC).

Alrighty then. <>, <= and >= it will be from now on.

Could I request that if the compiler is updated so that "=<" and "=>" stop working, an error is displayed please? Otherwise I'll be deep in the brown stuff...

[Anobium]

Well... removing stuff is actually harder than adding stuff.... removing means we could impact/break existing code.

:-)

[mkstevo]

I should be safe for a while then ;-)

[Jim giordano]

You didn't say anything about using != instead of <>, is that more inefficient, i.e. does it do a "not" before comparing?

[stan cartwright]

I have always used, because it was not optional

<=
>=

also I always use not port instead of ! port because ! did not mean not in any other basic I learnt.
edit how is not the same as <> ? I thought it was a bit operation, "not" a comparison of2 vars.

I found that var-- , ie var=var-1
compiles same as var--- ,,,,,which it should be
both work???