Would be used for testing scripts by outputting a list of options for the boolean:

<output [true v]::grey>
<output [false v]::grey>
<output [random v]::grey>

This would also be done with the ring block:

(output [string]::grey)

Not boolean works with the false- Besides you can basically set as true or false if you want in the right condition. Output string however is very VERY much useful, but like there is this block:

What about

output string [letters v]::reporter #baab82
output string [numbers v]::reporter #baab82

And for run without screen refresh blocks

runs instantly?:: boolean #baab82

I believe these would all fall under sensing.

Well, you could do something like this:

delete (all v) of [values v]
add [1] to [values v]
add [0] to [values v]
if (item (random v) of [values v]) then 
...
else
...
end

Or:

if <(pick random (0) to (1)) = [1]> then
...
else
...
end

medians wrote:

Well, you could do something like this:

delete (all v) of [values v]
add [1] to [values v]
add [0] to [values v]
if (item (random v) of [values v]) then // ???
...
else
...
end

you… can't do that

ThatOneCoder435 wrote:

you… can't do that

You actually can because 3.0 allows you to put that block in boolean inputs without hacked blocks, and to get “random” in 3.0, you can upload/backpack it from a project with the block/an older version of Scratch, or copy and paste “random”/“any” in.

medians wrote:

ThatOneCoder435 wrote:

you… can't do that

You actually can because 3.0 allows you to put that block in boolean inputs without hacked blocks, and to get “random” in 3.0, you can upload/backpack it from a project with the block/an older version of Scratch, or copy and paste “random”/“any” in.

Who’s gonna tell him

(item (pick random [1] to (length of [list v]::list))of [list v] :: list)

Also why can’t you just do

(join [] [])
<not <>>
<not <not <>>

Or alternatively for the last 2

<[Report false] = []>
<[True] = [true]>

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

medians wrote:

ThatOneCoder435 wrote:

you… can't do that

You actually can because 3.0 allows you to put that block in boolean inputs without hacked blocks, and to get “random” in 3.0, you can upload/backpack it from a project with the block/an older version of Scratch, or copy and paste “random”/“any” in.

Who’s gonna tell him

(item (pick random [1] to (length of [list v]::list))of [list v] :: list)

Yes I know about that workaround.
Also, I'm referring to the random option, which I think is meant to randomly report true or false.