if (input :: motion) then
end // does not exist
// instead, we must waste time with

if <(input :: motion) = [true]> then
end
 
// I propose:
if <[ ] :: control> then
end

if(myBoolean == true)
{
} 

 if(myBoolean)
{
}

Supporters :: grey cstart
Scratchifier :: operators 
theonlygusti :: operators
AonymousGuy :: operators
Firedrake969 :: operators
djdolphin :: operators
MegaApuTurkUltra :: operators
ShadowFlareX :: operators
J-man2 :: operators
NoMod-Programming :: operators
ealgase :: operators
_Hope :: operators
Superdoggy :: operators
Length: 12 :: cend

Opposers :: grey cstart
Randomperson1789
TechnoDriveX
Length: 2 :: cend

Fickle Pickes :: grey cstart
TheHockeyist :: pen
Length: 1 :: cend

set [Support Ratio v] to (((length of [Supporters v]) / (length of [Opposers v])) + ((length of [Fickle Pickles v]) * (0)))

Cyoce wrote:

I personally find it annoying how the boolean inputs work on scratch, especially with how they handle inputting variables (they don't). For example:

if (input :: motion) then
end // does not exist
// instead, we must waste time with

if <(input :: motion) = [true]> then
end
 
// I propose:
if <[ ] :: control> then
end

This would work just like if input = true, but since inputting a boolean has an implied (boolean = true), having to manually enter (boolean = true) is redundant and frankly a waste of time. We should allow boolean inputs to accept text, that way we can simply type “true”, or we can directly input variables, like any other programming language! Imagine if in Java, for example, you had to put up with

if(myBoolean == true)
{
} 

instead of just

 if(myBoolean)
{
}

Blueinkproductions wrote:

This would be an awesome addition to Scratch for the more advanced users, but I doubt it would make very much sense to a beginner at programming, which is the target audience of Scratch.

1. When you try to put a variable into a predicate slot, it doesn't show the White border. This will discourage new Scratchers from finding out about it for longer, so delay discovery and confusion.
   
2. Make variables have an option to be a Boolean reporter, which then makes it hexagonal.
   

djdolphin wrote:

Even better yet, just let users drop reporters in boolean inputs. I enabled that here and it works just as expected.

theonlygusti wrote:

djdolphin wrote:

Even better yet, just let users drop reporters in boolean inputs. I enabled that here and it works just as expected.

Oh, sorry!

This is what I thought the original post was talking about, I only skim read it *insert guilty emoji here*.

No support for the original idea, but support for this.

if <touching [wall v]?> then
end

if <myBooleanVariable :: variables> then
end

if [true v] then
end
// although the last one isn't that useful for if statements, it would be nice for custom blocks

jump  with gravity [true v] :: custom-arg

RandomPerson1789 wrote:

You just stated a easy workaround, so no support

if (someBoolean == true)
{
}

AonymousGuy wrote:

RandomPerson1789 wrote:

You just stated a easy workaround, so no support

It may be easy, but also slows down the project by a slight bit, and doesn't teach about the future of coding.

For example, in Java, I still sometimes waste data by writing this code:

if (someBoolean == true)
{
}

This is inefficient programming, and programming is best when it is efficient. Thus, I would like to see this so newer programmers are introduced to the concept earlier.

For now, though, variables can be hacked in to predicate slots if it really is important.

Firedrake969 wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

RandomPerson1789 wrote:

You just stated a easy workaround, so no support

It may be easy, but also slows down the project by a slight bit, and doesn't teach about the future of coding.

For example, in Java, I still sometimes waste data by writing this code:

if (someBoolean == true)
{
}

This is inefficient programming, and programming is best when it is efficient. Thus, I would like to see this so newer programmers are introduced to the concept earlier.

For now, though, variables can be hacked in to predicate slots if it really is important.

I do the same thing.

+1

(Of course, those who “hack” variables probably know coding conventions anyways)

Cyoce wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

RandomPerson1789 wrote:

You just stated a easy workaround, so no support

It may be easy, but also slows down the project by a slight bit, and doesn't teach about the future of coding.

For example, in Java, I still sometimes waste data by writing this code:

if (someBoolean == true)
{
}

This is inefficient programming, and programming is best when it is efficient. Thus, I would like to see this so newer programmers are introduced to the concept earlier.

For now, though, variables can be hacked in to predicate slots if it really is important.

I do the same thing.

+1

(Of course, those who “hack” variables probably know coding conventions anyways)

+1?

Scratchifier wrote:

Cyoce wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

RandomPerson1789 wrote:

You just stated a easy workaround, so no support

It may be easy, but also slows down the project by a slight bit, and doesn't teach about the future of coding.

For example, in Java, I still sometimes waste data by writing this code:

if (someBoolean == true)
{
}

This is inefficient programming, and programming is best when it is efficient. Thus, I would like to see this so newer programmers are introduced to the concept earlier.

For now, though, variables can be hacked in to predicate slots if it really is important.

I do the same thing.

+1

(Of course, those who “hack” variables probably know coding conventions anyways)

+1?

+1 means support.

TheHockeyist wrote:

Hmmm… while this would be nice and useful, I don't think New Scratchers could understand it.

Indifferent.

Cyoce wrote:

TheHockeyist wrote:

Hmmm… while this would be nice and useful, I don't think New Scratchers could understand it.

Indifferent.

What's not to understand? It would be exactly the same, but with the ability to drag in variables. One could argue that it's more confusing to have an input box that you can only drag specific things into.

TheHockeyist wrote:

I feel like it would be too confusing. It would be useful for the older Scratchers, not so much for the newer ones.

TimothyLawyer wrote:

TheHockeyist wrote:

I feel like it would be too confusing. It would be useful for the older Scratchers, not so much for the newer ones.

Per this, no support. Scratch is a programming language for beginner programmers. Explicit boolean comparisons is a good thing, and at most a minor burden for more advanced programmers.

theonlygusti wrote:

Separating booleans from reporters is not a good thing,