Hi Rezaa!
Pls provide an example without real var names, but mocks like var1, var2, etc.
Currently I see formulas as maximally simple thing, so extending it with complex syntax is not good as it will increase complexity — not only implementation but to understanding.
Ok!
This example is about test with three scale If one of them rise against others it would has a specific result if else it would be a mixed result (result4). As you see shaping a conditional string for this result is to complicated and hard.
Result1:(cws1scale =>( cws2scale+3)) AND (cws1scale =>( cws3scale+3))
Result2:(cws2scale =>( cws1scale+3)) AND (cws2scale =>( cws3scale+3))
Result3:(cws3scale =>( cws2scale+3)) AND (cws3scale =>( cws1scale+3))
Result4:(cws1scale =>( cws2scale+3)) AND (cws1scale =>( cws3scale+3))
((cws1scale – cws2scale<=3) AND (cws2scale – cws3scale<=3) AND (cws1scale – cws3scale<=3)) OR ((cws1scale – cws2scale<=3) AND (cws2scale > cws3scale)) OR ((cws1scale < cws2scale) AND (cws2scale – cws3scale<=3)) OR ((cws1scale > cws2scale) AND (cws1scale – cws3scale<=3))
And how do you see last formula with if/else?
“Ifnot ((Result1)or(Result2)or(Result3))”
By simply copy and pasting those results
Hmm… I think if here is not needed, but something like “not(…)” will be usable.
Regarding another results vars. I think it’s possible to add them, but only with limitation like: “Usage of another results vars allowed only in next byt order results formulas”.
Usage of another results as vars is a very good idea.
But copy and pasting those result’s formula may work as well as that.
Rezaa, NOT(..) added now in formulas. Pls update to 0.15.
Thanks Alexander!
It is wonderful
