[ANSI-Smalltalk] Re: A list of interesting methods, ifNotNil:

[Paolo Bonzini]

> There seem to be three reasons for leaving [ifNil:][ifNotNil:]
> out:
> (1) No agreement about the optional argument in the not-nil
>    block; of course the standard could cover just the no-
>    argument case.

The standard can force implementation to support both cases.  That's
slowly becoming the standard.

> (3) Where do you stop?  Once you have these, why not
>    b1 while[Not]Nil[: b2]?  Why not ifEmpty:ifNotEmpty:?
>    This is actually a serious question; I've wanted
>    b1 whileNotNil: b2 often enough.

I think Squeak has ifEmpty:ifNotEmpty: but I agree that...

> these methods _are_ common practice and those aren't."

Paolo