Chibi-Matoran wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

ItchyCatIII wrote:

No support.

There is a very simple workaround that not too many people know:

A blank boolean slot returns “false”

<not <>>

without anything in it, returns true.

And for those who have not figured that out, there is the variable method, which may be slightly annoying but not too hard to figure out or do.

Can the not<> block store a value? No. In addition, doing <(variable) = > encourages bad programming practices. For a further explanation of my stance, see here.

<offtopic>Scratch is NOT encouraging bad practices. They are making it so students can get ready to do actual coding stuff.

Scratch is meant to get starting users on a low floor, not a high ceiling. Also, = and == can get really confusing because they mean 2 different things. And you do know people under the age of 10 use Scratch, right? .</offtopic>

I wasn't criticizing == in my post. I was saying that Scratchers should be able to directly put a variable in a hexagonal Boolean slot instead of using the comparison operator block. What happens currently is that the Boolean value stored in the variable is casted to a String and compared to the String “true” using the <[] = []> block. Putting a variable in a Boolean slot would not be confusing, and it would actually be more convenient.

I don't know what's your event :: events hat
if <escaping :: custom> then
set [Escaping... v] to (True)
else
set [Escaping... v] to (False)
end

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Chibi-Matoran wrote:

ItchyCatIII wrote:

No support.

There is a very simple workaround that not too many people know:

A blank boolean slot returns “false”

<not <>>

without anything in it, returns true.

And for those who have not figured that out, there is the variable method, which may be slightly annoying but not too hard to figure out or do.

Can the not<> block store a value? No. In addition, doing <(variable) = > encourages bad programming practices. For a further explanation of my stance, see here.

<offtopic>Scratch is NOT encouraging bad practices. They are making it so students can get ready to do actual coding stuff.

Scratch is meant to get starting users on a low floor, not a high ceiling. Also, = and == can get really confusing because they mean 2 different things. And you do know people under the age of 10 use Scratch, right? .</offtopic>

I wasn't criticizing == in my post. I was saying that Scratchers should be able to directly put a variable in a hexagonal Boolean slot instead of using the comparison operator block. What happens currently is that the Boolean value stored in the variable is casted to a String and compared to the String “true” using the <[] = []> block. Putting a variable in a Boolean slot would not be confusing, and it would actually be more convenient.

yea, and

<(var) = [1 ]>

is just as convenient.

No, it isn't.

How to use a Variable's Boolean value:

1. Click on the Operators category
   
2. Drag the <[] = []> block into the Boolean slot
   
3. Click the Data category
   
4. Drag the variable you want into one operand slot of the = block
   
5. Type “true” in the other operand slot
   

How you should be able to use a Boolean-typed Variable's value:

1. Click on the Data category
   
2. Drag the variable you want into the Boolean slot
   

when green flag clicked
forever
    
if <(moving?) = [ true]> then
    
move (1) steps
end

end

alexphan wrote:

One question: WHAT ARE BOOLEAN VARIABLES???????!?!?!?:o

<ineeded variable>

Diamond_Projects wrote:

Don't forget:

set [ v] to [true v]

And I support.

set [ v] to [ true]

no support

EliteProgramming wrote:

no support

Easy to solve

no support reason: [easy workaround]
<(var)=[true]

pvz_pro wrote:

no support reason: [easy workaround]
<(var)=[true]

if(x == true){}

theonlygusti wrote:

I think it would be nice to be able to drag variables into boolean slots, and have them be evaluated as booleans implicitly.

pvz_pro wrote:

no support reason: [easy workaround]
<(var)=[true]

Inreal49 wrote:

ineeded because… well…

when green flag clicked
forever
    
if <(moving?) = [ true]> then
    
move (1) steps
end

end

no support

1. encourages poor programming habits
   
2. is a necessity unique to Scratch
   
3. is, honestly, a waste of time and energy
   
4. has a higher potential for error (spelling “true” wrong, using inconsistent representations of booleans)
   

Inreal49 wrote:

<ineeded variable>

theonlygusti wrote:

drag variables into boolean slots, and have them be evaluated as booleans implicitly.

theonlygusti wrote:

I think it would be nice to be able to drag variables into boolean slots, and have them be evaluated as booleans implicitly.

set [Next loop v] to ( (a) > (1) )  // this variable now contains  the value "true" if a is 2
set [Last loop v] to ( (a) = (3) )  // this other variable now contains  the value "false"  if a = 2

set [Next loop v] to ( (a) > (1) )  // this variable still contains  the value "true" if a is 3
set [Last loop v] to ( (a) = (3) )  // this other variable now contains  the value "true"  if a = 3

if  ( ( Last loop )::operators ) then
end

Ger77 wrote:

This suggestion seem logic because I do not understand why it is possible to choose “Boolean”, “Text” and “Number” in the definition of a custom block for a parameter, but not for a normal variable?

define say number (number1)
say (number1) for (2) secs

say number (join [hello ] [world]) // says "hello world"

Ger77 wrote:

if  <Last loop::variables> then
end

Sheep_maker wrote:

theonlygusti wrote:

I think it would be nice to be able to drag variables into boolean slots, and have them be evaluated as booleans implicitly.

Not just variables, but for all reporters.
Support for that.