Edit: I see what you mean, yeah could be awkward for beginners

^^ there is also a overview problem if you need to compare boolean values and after that integers and so on
which looks like so:
((_boola && _boolb) && (_inta == _intb))

i'll be the first to admit i still try bool==bool with odd regularity, despite knowing better :) but it doesn't bother me that i can't use ==, less typing anyways!

As it stands currently it kinda makes sense: a bool is the answer to its own expression. theres no point in comparing true == true, when true is already the result.

But I'll /upvote for behavior predictability

using
(a == b)
you don't need to know if
a = true;
b = true;
or
a = false;
b = false;
using
(a && b)
will not work for second example where you have to know if both are false then use
(!a && !b)

EDIT: awkward

still not even a review?
also
i would like to know why people downvote
because it just makes sense to compare two booleans for equalness (instead of value)
see the example above
because
when you got this case:
_b1 = false;
_b2 = false;
and compare both with &&
you need to do two compares for a single "is equal" check!
(_b1 && _b2) || (!_b1 && !_b2)

bump

another bump because of importance!

The new command isEqualTo takes booleans

it should not be the solution to use isEqualTo instead of ==

From what I understood after talking to programmer is that what you are asking is not going to happen. Even introducing === for strict comparison to be able to compare booleans was out of the question. And for sure no one will even think of altering behaviour of ==. Of course feel free to bump this till the world's end, but If I were you I'd take isEqualTo.