Scratch will not have variable types. But there are no data types so a true boolean block is just “true” so just type that.

I support!

when green flag clicked
if <(language) = [English ]> then
    
say [Everything is Awesome!] for (2) secs
end
if <(language) = [French ]> then
    
say [Tout est super-genial!] for (2) secs
end
if <(language) = [Italian ]> then
    
say [E meraviglioso!] for (2) secs
end
if <(language) = [Spanish ]> then

say [Todo es fabuloso!] for (2) secs    
end

YES THIS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BEFORE!!!
I think that it would be convenient for proffesional Scratchers to use a boolean variable block. It would look like a normal variable and it would have pointy ends. People say its too complicated for new Scrathers but I think that it won't be that confusing. I see that in custom blocks, there is a boolean input so why not make boolean variables? When you click create a new variable, it would give you the default variable shape but if you click on a check box labeled “boolean”, it would become a boolean variable. Why not?

To set a boolean variable, the

set [boolean v] to []

would become

set [boolean v] to <>

It wouldn't be that hard to understand!
Let me know what you guys think!

(Why did I post this even though I know it has been suggested before? I changed the idea a bit than some other people )

if <(You are cool?)=[true]> then
    say [Scratch Party is awesome!]
    forever
        play Scratch Party! ::custom
   end
end

jaboyc wrote:

YES THIS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BEFORE!!!
I think that it would be convenient for proffesional Scratchers to use a boolean variable block. It would look like a normal variable and it would have pointy ends. People say its too complicated for new Scrathers but I think that it won't be that confusing. I see that in custom blocks, there is a boolean input so why not make boolean variables? When you click create a new variable, it would give you the default variable shape but if you click on a check box labeled “boolean”, it would become a boolean variable. Why not?

To set a boolean variable, the

set [boolean v] to []

would become

set [boolean v] to <>

It wouldn't be that hard to understand!
Let me know what you guys think!

(Why did I post this even though I know it has been suggested before? I changed the idea a bit than some other people )

Or you could just store either “false” or “true” in a normal variable and do this:

if <(booleanvar) = [true ]> then
    do true scripts
else
do false scripts

No support. You can already put booleans in a

set [variable v] to []

and

<(variable) = [true]>

isn't that hard to do.

Yes I know. Don't you think Boolean variables would make things simpler? It would also introduce booleans to new scratchers so they could get familiar with them.

if <(You are cool?)=[true]> then
    say [Scratch Party is awesome!]
    forever
        play Scratch Party! ::custom
   end
end

stickfiregames wrote:

No support. You can already put booleans in a

set [variable v] to []

and

<(variable) = [true]>

isn't that hard to do.

True.

Actually, you can use variables to function as different types of variables:

if <touching [Sprite1 v] ?> then
    
set [touching sprite1? v] to [true]
end
if <not <touching [Sprite1 v] ?>> then
set [touching sprite1? v] to [false]    
end

say [♫♫Keep on Scratchin'♫♫]

jvvg wrote:

You can just set a variable to zero or one, and check if it equals one.

I know… it would just make it a whole lot easier.

Diamond_Projects wrote:

Don't forget:

set [ v] to [true v]

And I support.

support on this one.

My variabools API is designed to make boolean as well as numeric variables! here is a link: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/67760866/

Support! It would be a huge time saver if we could just insert a boolean variable into a hexagonal boolean slot instead of doing "<(booleanVariable) = [true]>."

Do

set [ v] to [0 ] //or false
set [ v] to [1 ] //or true

no support.

Yay, the topic was reopened just now!

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.

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.

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.

I made an extension that does this

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>

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.

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.

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