Small Target number formula bug (success)

While checking the roll formulas I noticed that to make a target number equal or greater you have to write >= or <= on the formula. However if I write /roll {5d10}>=12 the roller says there is an error in the formula. If I separate the symbols with a space I get a result /roll {5d10} >= 12  rolling {5d10} >= 12  { ( 4 + 7 + 5 + 8 + 4 ) }  =  28 But I don't get the number of success. I know I can simply drop or increase the target number by one and use > or < in order to get the successes right. But I think you should check it out, since the dice roller reference says something that doesn't work as written. Thank you for your attention.

You shouldn't need the =. Both > and < are overloaded and imply the = already. Adding the space just detaches the success check from the group and turns it into a comment.

Thank you. I missunderstood that from the text. 

Can you point me to the confusing help test? I'll see about getting that cleaned up :)

"Roll20 uses the greater-than symbol  >  to indicate when the roll is greater-than or equal-to  >=  the target number. The less-than symbol  <  is used to indicate when the roll is less-than or equal-to  <=  the target number." I initially got confused when I read the >= symbol. I misunderstood the sentence and I thought it was more like: "Roll20 uses the greater-than symbol  >  to indicate when the roll is greater-than or (use) equal-to  >= " however, down below this was made it all clear (and your prompt reply): "A Compare Point consists of an optional compare operation < , = , >  and a target number. If the operation is not specified  =  is assumed and for most modifiers the entire Compare Point can be left off for the default behavior. Example Compare Points 3  - If the roll is equal to 3 >2  - If the roll is greater than or equal to 2 <18  - If the roll is less than or equal to 18 " I probably read it too fast and got confused. Or perhaps I got confused because the >= and <= are highlighted and assumed they went in the formula.

No problem, I'll go review that section and see if we can make it more clear :)