+0
Workaround:

<<<> or < >> and <not <<> and < >>>>

Semi support, seems useful and less messy but there's an easy workaround.

No support.

Just use this:

<not <(x) = (y)>>

replacing x with the first boolean to test, and y with the second.

bump!

You could use something like this:

<<<(value1)=[true]> or <(value2)=[true]>>and<not<(value1)=(value2)>>> 

Basically word for word what you're requesting.
Almost all (if not all) logic gates can be made using <and> and <not>

I find that an xor block would be useful to have in scratch. I definatly support that topic! Of course you can do {if 1 or 2 and not 1 and 2} but an xor block would be quicker, easier and very useful.

Workaround:

<((<boolean #1::grey>) + (<boolean #2::grey))=[1]>

Note, I am not block spamming or not supporting this suggestion because there is a workaround, I am simply providing the workaround to add to this discussion

Isn't xor the same thing as ≠?

<[2] ≠ [1]  :: operators>

<not <[] = []>>

Done.

Workaround:

<not <<a> = <b>>>

The xor block would be useful for many numbers. {If 1 or 2 or 3 and not 1 and 2 and not 1 and 3 and not 2 and 3} if quite long even though there are only 3 numbers. Maybe you need 100 numbers! Imagine that! {If 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6… or 100 and not 1 and 2 and not 1 and 3 … and not 1 and 100 and not 2 and 3 and not … 2 and 100 …….. and not 99 and 100} That would take AGES only for that block!

can anyone answer my question?

if <<> or <>> then
if <not <<> and <>>> then

end
end

Edit: Here's a simple workaround I discovered. Of course, this may help with experienced Scratchers. But as for new Scratchers, the concept of XOR may be found complicated, especially if they don't know what they're doing. It's simple to understand the concepts “and”, “not” or “or”, but they may not catch onto XOR, especially after Scratch got rid of the block identification thing after 3.0. (I don't remember what it's called. Sorry!)

-snip-

@Za-Chary* said that what I previously said was false.

Super_Scratch_Bros20 wrote:

-snip-

No, that workaround is correct. If a and b are both false, then a = b and so not(a = b) is false. Similarly, if a and b are both true, then a = b and so not(a = b) is false. But if a is true and b is false (or vice versa) then a = b is false, making not(a = b) true. Thus the script runs as intended — if exactly one is true, then it returns true, otherwise it returns false.

Isn't xor the same thing as ≠?

<[2] ≠ [1]  :: operators> 

Hello? Can anyone answer my question?

Bacteria999 wrote:

Isn't xor the same thing as ≠?

<[2] ≠ [1]  :: operators> 

No.
XOR compares two booleans and returns true if one or the other (not both) is true.
≠ compares two values (which can be booleans) and returns true if they are not equal.
However, they do return the same results when using booleans, so that's why the ≠ workaround works.

NOTE TO ALL FUTURE REPLIERS:
The following workarounds have already been proposed and tested. Please don't suggest these again; rather, contribute to the discussion about adding an XOR block to the blocks palette in the Scratch editor.

<not <<boolean1> = <boolean2>>>

<<<boolean1> or <boolean2>> and <not <<boolean1> and <boolean2>>>>

No support. Just use a workaround.

<not <[var] = [var2]>>

*sighs*