I would like to have a block like

<()::operators>

or

<[]::operators>

which just converts an 1 as a variable to true and 0 to false and true (string) to true (boolean) and false (string) to false (boolean). It would be useful if you want to store in a variable if something is shown or not.

HTML-Fan wrote:

I would like to have a block like

<()::operators>

which just converts an 1 as a variable to true and 0 to false and true (string) to true (boolean) and false (string) to false (boolean). It would be useful if you want to store in a variable if something is shown or not.

what would happen if the variable was larger than 1?
also, the block would not work, as you would be able to add other things like costume name, which would confuse things…
there is a very simple workaround which is

if <(variable) = [1]> then
...
end
if <(variable) = [2]> then
...
end

I consider that workaround better, as you can choose the limit (eg. what if you wanted to know whether the variable was ‘3’, ‘2’ or ‘1’ rather than just ‘2’ or ‘1’?)

-Squiggle wrote:

what would happen if the variable was larger than 1?

It would be true. Only “false”, 0, and an empty string should be considered false.

It should be 0 or 1 (like in C++ and other things) or “false” and “true”.
There's a simple workaround, but the = 1 doesn't look nice. If you just can use a variable as a boolean, then it's clear what it's doing.

Maximouse wrote:

It would be true. Only “false”, 0, and an empty string should be considered false.

Yes, it would be like
if(variable)
in C++. But the String “false” is also false, since that's what you get by using

set [xyz v] to <mouse down?>

HTML-Fan wrote:

Maximouse wrote:

It would be true. Only “false”, 0, and an empty string should be considered false.

Yes, it would be like
if(variable)
in C++. But the String “false” is also false, since that's what you get by using

set [xyz v] to <mouse down?>

yes. but that would still be just a more limited version of a block that you could already use… I don't see the sense in that?

HTML-Fan wrote:

It should be 0 or 1 (like in C++ and other things) or “false” and “true”.
There's a simple workaround, but the = 1 doesn't look nice. If you just can use a variable as a boolean, then it's clear what it's doing.

mmm… ok - this would be simple to use when it comes to variables, but wouldn't this still mess up when it comes to other reporter blocks?

-Squiggle wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

It should be 0 or 1 (like in C++ and other things) or “false” and “true”.
There's a simple workaround, but the = 1 doesn't look nice. If you just can use a variable as a boolean, then it's clear what it's doing.

mmm… ok - this would be simple to use when it comes to variables, but wouldn't this still mess up when it comes to other reporter blocks?

All reporter blocks work the same as variables. Also, I suggest the block to look like this:

<[true v] :: operators>

You could choose “true” or “false” in the dropdown menu, or drop a reporter onto it.

I store the mouse down state in a variable so I can use

if <<(mousedown)::operators> and <not <(oldmousedown)::operators>>> then

end

Maximouse wrote:

-Squiggle wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

It should be 0 or 1 (like in C++ and other things) or “false” and “true”.
There's a simple workaround, but the = 1 doesn't look nice. If you just can use a variable as a boolean, then it's clear what it's doing.

mmm… ok - this would be simple to use when it comes to variables, but wouldn't this still mess up when it comes to other reporter blocks?

All reporter blocks work the same as variables. Also, I suggest the block to look like this:

<[true v] :: operators>

You could choose “true” or “false” in the dropdown menu, or drop a reporter onto it.

Yes. Or just use

<(0)::operators>
<(1)::operators>

Maximouse wrote:

Also, I suggest the block to look like this:

<[true v] :: operators>

You could choose “true” or “false” in the dropdown menu, or drop a reporter onto it.

How would you know which variable this is referring to?

I would just use 1 and 0 together with variable to boolean.

HTML-Fan wrote:

I would just use 1 and 0 together with variable to boolean.

what do you mean?

HTML-Fan wrote:

<[0]::operators>
<[1]::operators>

There you have true and false as booleans. Alternative:

<[false]::operators>
<[true]::operators>

HTML-Fan wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

<[0]::operators>
<[1]::operators>

There you have true and false as booleans. Alternative:

<[false]::operators>
<[true]::operators>

yes. but how would you know what variable this is for?

-Squiggle wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

<[0]::operators>
<[1]::operators>

There you have true and false as booleans. Alternative:

<[false]::operators>
<[true]::operators>

yes. but how would you know what variable this is for?

That would just report true or false.

I don't know what you want to say.
It should just convert a number, text or variable with either to a boolean:

<[false]::operators> //returns false
<[true]::operators> //returns true
<[0]::operators> //returns false
<[1]::operators> //returns true
set [var v] to [0]
<(var)::operators> //returns false
set [var v] to [true]
<(var)::operators> //returns true

*bump*

HTML-Fan wrote:

I don't know what you want to say.
It should just convert a number, text or variable with either to a boolean:

<[false]::operators> //returns false
<[true]::operators> //returns true
<[0]::operators> //returns false
<[1]::operators> //returns true
set [var v] to [0]
<(var)::operators> //returns false
set [var v] to [true]
<(var)::operators> //returns true

ah. that makes more sense. yes, it's a possible… but there are still probably some things which would need to be thought through.

I would say that the only things which are false are 0 and “false” (not case-sensitive).