You choose

[madscijr]

Really we have to spell it out for you? 0 = False

Besides True = -1 does not cover all things Not False and I am sure we don't want to see the list of all things Not False

Perhaps False$ = "" ?

Making False a string seems like an unnecessary complication.

Is this a debate of preferences or is the QB64PE team looking to do away with _TRUE / _FALSE ? 

Since under the hood, _TRUE and _FALSE are integers -1 and 0, why not just add a simple option to the IDE, a checkbox "Display _TRUE / _FALSE as numbers" and when it's checked, it automatically replaces all _TRUE / _FALSE with -1 & 0 ? The only problem is that it's irreversible - unchecking it, it won't know which -1s & 0s to replace again with _TRUE/_FALSE, LoL. 

Or perhapse under the hood it stores anything that was entered as _TRUE / _FALSE as a special token, so that it can change back & forth? 

Really, I prefer the IDE to let you configure your options so that you can view the code according to your preferences, rather than be forced to endure someone else's. It's like how in C & JavaScript some people prefer the "Egyptian" style of putting the opening curly brace at the end of the previous line and others want it on its own line. I know some people like code to be as stripped down as possible (like C syntax) and others like it more verbose (like Python) but it's 2025, shouldn't we be able to choose our own syntax where our tools "render" the code to our liking on the fly? 

I realize this is a longer reply than you probably expected or wanted but this kind of discussion opens that debate!