<if <> then <> :: control>

We need this block, it would have a lot of uses.
For example, let's say there was a game where there is a choice of 2 players, and something must appear away from the players.
They would need this:

repeat until <not <<(distance to [player one v]) = [30]> and <if <(players) = [2]> then <not <(distance to [player two v]) = [30]>> :: control>>>
go to [random position v]
end
show

It's subtle, but there is a relatively simple workaround.

<<not <>> or <>>

When you write this:

<if <boolean A> then <boolean B> :: control>

It is always true unless “boolean A” is true and “boolean B” is false. Similarly:

<<not <boolean A>> or <boolean B>>

If “boolean A” is false, then the entire boolean would be true due to the “or” statement. If “boolean A” is true, then we need “boolean B” to be true in order for the boolean to be true (otherwise, it's false). In other words, this boolean is always true unless “boolean A” is true and “boolean B” is false.

Applying this logic to the example you gave might make more sense.

Za-Chary wrote:

It's subtle, but there is a relatively simple workaround.

<<not <>> or <>>

When you write this:

<if <boolean A> then <boolean B> :: control>

It is always true unless “boolean A” is true and “boolean B” is false. Similarly:

<<not <boolean A>> or <boolean B>>

If “boolean A” is false, then the entire boolean would be true due to the “or” statement. If “boolean A” is true, then we need “boolean B” to be true in order for the boolean to be true (otherwise, it's false). In other words, this boolean is always true unless “boolean A” is true and “boolean B” is false.

Applying this logic to the example you gave might make more sense.

Oh, okay! Thanks!

Glad you found an answer! Since this is resolved, I'll close it to help highlight the answer and prevent future responses. If you need it re-opened, though, you can report this and ask.