InvertedBooleanProperty should not be settable, or should have 2-way binding

[samreid]

During phetsims/wave-interference#426 it was recommended to use InvertedBooleanProperty. I discovered there is a problem that you can set its value independently.

const x = new BooleanProperty(false);
const y = new InvertedBooleanProperty(x);
y.value = false;

Have you considered implementing InvertedBooleanProperty using DynamicProperty, which supports one-way or two-way binding?

Have you considered implementing InvertedBooleanProperty as a DerivedProperty, like:

new DerivedProperty( [ xProperty ], x => !x )

[jbphet]

Have you considered implementing InvertedBooleanProperty using DynamicProperty...?
Have you considered implementing InvertedBooleanProperty as a DerivedProperty...?

I hadn't thought about it much at all, I just wanted it and whipped it up quickly. It's a good point that it can be set independently, which is undesirable. I've revised it to use the DerivedProperty approach described above, and this makes it very compact.

Good suggestion @samreid. Good to go? Do we need to think about passing in a tandem or options?

[samreid]

I recommend passing through options so usage sites can pass options as necessary.

[jbphet]

Options added. Are we done here?

[samreid]

The options look great, I just added one improvement to the JSDoc. The last thing is it seems this belongs in axon--nothing about it seems tambo specific (except that tambo may use it).

Finally, I noticed the definitions of DerivedProperty.and and DerivedProperty.or and was wondering if this should be defined as DerivedProperty.not to fit in better.

[jbphet]

I noticed the definitions of DerivedProperty.and and DerivedProperty.or and was wondering if this should be defined as DerivedProperty.not to fit in better.

That seems great, I didn't realize it was an option. I went with it, please review and close if you're good with it.

[samreid]

Looks great, thanks! Closing.