Yes, we would. All sorts of things would break if something declared as object became something else. Something else can be assigned to it, but that's not the same thing. In fact anything can be assigned to it. That's the point.

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

Hmmm... what if object had worked like var to begin with?

Then we would need something that worked like object.

~Anders wrote:

That way, you're not repeating yourself...

... and if I have a box of rocks, the label just says rocks.

If that's how you use booleans, you might as well just use an integer set to 1 or 0 or a string set to "Y" or "N" (or "True" or "False"). How about: somethingIsWrong = (type <> "GOOD" AndAlso type <> "Cool") With a variable name that clearly expresses the condition represented by the boolean, the comparison to True or False becomes clearly redundant.

Both examples make me shudder. Why would you compare a boolean to True or False? It IS true or false.