Create clamp expression

[Phill310]

Description

Creates a clamp expression to clamp values between a min and a max.
This is my first time working with skript so any help/tips would be appreciated :)

---

Target Minecraft Versions: any
Requirements: none
Related Issues: #6488

[Moderocky]

I think I'd rather fix the function return behaviour than make a syntax for this.

[Fusezion]

Skimmed over it and this is all I saw for now

[Fusezion]

I think I'd rather fix the function return behaviour than make a syntax for this.

there is no bug in function return behavior is works how it's intended to

[Moderocky]

there is no bug in function return behavior is works how it's intended to

And I'm saying the behaviour is poor and could be done better.

[AyhamAl-Ali]

I don't much like this addition as Functions are better fit for this.

[Fusezion]

I don't much like this addition as Functions are better fit for this.

Same could be said about the ExprRound class for rounded [1:up|2:down] %numbers%. This would work as a function if functions actually supported isSingle checks which rolls into Moderocky's mention.

And I'm saying the behaviour is poor and could be done better.

It can't be done better when the function literally can't support set {_blah} to clamp(10.6, 1, 10) this isn't exclusive to clamp when round function has the same flaw.

[Fusezion]

Whoops missed some points

[Moderocky]

It can't be done better when the function literally can't support set {_blah} to clamp(10.6, 1, 10) this isn't exclusive to clamp when round function has the same flaw.

Maybe I didn't make it clear, I am recommending we fix the issue with variable arity returns not being permitted in single changers.
This would make all such functions work.

[Moderocky]

Even if we fix the function, I don't think that means we can't have an expression as well if people want both, but I think it has room for improvement.

[Fusezion]

Just incase this is still approved to be added which I see no reason not to speaking there's already a round expression too. There should be test added as well.

[Moderocky]

Do you think we could have some tests for this? Tests make the world go round!

[Phill310]

I was looking over the clamp function tests but got confused by these three.

assert clamp(1, 0, NaN value) is not clamp(1, 0, NaN value) with "(single ints) min < value < NaN"
assert clamp(1, NaN value, 2) is not clamp(1, NaN value, 2) with "(single ints) NaN < value < max"
assert clamp(NaN value, 1, 2) is not clamp(NaN value, 1, 2) with "(single ints) min < NaN < max"

Why are they getting compared to themselves? I feel like these should be checking if the output is set.

[Moderocky]

Why are they getting compared to themselves? I feel like these should be checking if the output is set.

If I remember correctly this was one of the ways to check for 'not a number' because it didn't test equal to itself. I don't know if that's still the case anymore and we may have a better way.

[sovdeeth]

Why are they getting compared to themselves? I feel like these should be checking if the output is set.

If I remember correctly this was one of the ways to check for 'not a number' because it didn't test equal to itself. I don't know if that's still the case anymore and we may have a better way.

yes we have isNaN() now!

[Phill310]

In that case should it become assert isNaN(clamp(1, 0, NaN value)) is true with "(single ints) min < value < NaN"?
Or do we want it to be false. I don't really understand what the old check was aiming for

[sovdeeth]

In that case should it become assert isNaN(clamp(1, 0, NaN value)) is true with "(single ints) min < value < NaN"? Or do we want it to be false. I don't really understand what the old check was aiming for

yes exactly
The original test took advantage of the fact that NaN does not equal NaN, but any other value should equal itself, to test for NaN

[sovdeeth]

Do we still want to move ahead with this now that the function is fixed? I like having the clamped above/below syntax.