This is a tricky change because it modifies the behavior of existing scripts. Consider:
IF A: B + B 1
PROB 30: B - B 1
ELSE: SCRIPT B
Currently, the ELSE is triggered if the IF doesn’t fire. Your change would cause PROB to take over the else-state and now ELSE is controlled by the PROB.
I think WTOSS is a great idea and that by itself would allow you to accomplish the same thing; just use IF WTOSS instead of PROB, and now you have access to ELSE in a backwards-compatible way. Not quite as terse, but it doesn’t change behavior of existing scripts, and it also keeps the IF/ELSE, EV/OTHER pairing neat (following that pattern, PROB should get its own unique paired “other case” operator, but I don’t think it really needs one if you have something like WTOSS.)
Yeah, that’s exactly why I asked, the way ELSE is set up right now it doesn’t need to immediately follow the IF statement, and changing that would constitute a breaking change which seems to be a nono for updates.
I think WTOSS is a lovely addition and I agree with @Dewb, if it’s introduced then the requirement for ELSE to work with PROB is fully substituted, unless I’m missing something.
Regarding PROB/ELSE: I agree with @ParanormalPatroler and @Dewb 's concerns. Also, I agree, using IF WTOSS in combination with ELSE would work.
However, for purely “code aesthetic” reasons, I also like Dewb’s idea of giving PROB a paired “other case” operator, following the pattern of IF/ELSE and EVERY/OTHER. That way, no existing functionality would be broken or changed (just a new OP introduced), and it would follow the existing convention nicely.
Admittedly, the difficulty is to find a good matching word. REMAIN, REST, FAIL, …?