Mouse up workaround is toxic bcz no one uses the workaround and make the

<not <mouse down?>>

to not work properly and make the mouse up boolean block to have the same traits as the workaround

How is it toxic? If it has the same traits as the workaround then there’s no point in adding it, since it’s only one block extra to add.

How is it toxic?

Joke you (can) take seriously -> It's a suggestion. You can't get directly physically hurt.

EDIT: adds some (BB)Code!

TheSmartGuy1234 wrote:

How is it toxic?

Joke you (can) take seriously -> It's a suggestion. You can't get directly physically hurt.

EDIT: adds some (BB)Code!

Bcz the workaround is the one who rejects the mouse up block

So… what are you suggesting?

IdkbutprobablyAmogus wrote:

Mouse up workaround is toxic bcz no one uses the workaround

Firstly, I think almost everyone has used the workaround, and secondly, I don't think “toxic” is the word you're looking for.

IdkbutprobablyAmogus wrote:

make the

<not <mouse down?>>

to not work properly and make the mouse up boolean block to have the same traits as the workaround

Are you joking? They're not going to deliberately break projects because people used a harmless workaround.

DinoMaster20 wrote:

So… what are you suggesting?

I think that they are suggesting to remove the functionality of the workaround and give it to the “mouse up” block.
Not gonna lie, that seems rather much and more importantly redundant, especially for a two block workaround. That's probably why it got rejected.

IdkbutprobablyAmogus wrote:

Mouse up workaround is toxic bcz no one uses the workaround -snip-

Couple of things, 1) if you're going to claim that a workaround is (somehow) toxic, explain, in detail, how it is toxic, and 2) if you are going to make a claim that no one uses a workaround, back up that claim.
Here, a workaround is literally a script or a piece of script. A workaround cannot be toxic, precisely because a workaround is not a person. A person can have malicious intent, but a script, or a workaround, does not have malicious intent, regardless of what it is used for. This is because a script, or workaround, is inanimate.

No, this would break a lot of projects

This would be like removing costumes, making them unusable in any project, and adding a new tab called “appearances” that would do the exact same thing. I can't see why the Scratch Team would implement this.