I can understand your position.
I do not have strong opinion on that and indeed I would like to avoid that this is becoming handy to do isKindOf:
so may be we should remove is:
Stef
On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:56 PM, Colin Putney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Igor Stasenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Just yesterday i had discussion about this with people in the lab. I
>> can't say that i heard something new regarding this,
>> and not saying that i'd like to resurrect the discussion.
>> So, in short: there was no objection concerning getting rid of isXXX
>> in favor of using #is: method.
>> The only thing which still looks controversial is too simple default
>> implementation which answers false.
>
> No so. I think #is: is a terrible idea, and I object to it on those
> grounds. I only object to the default implementation because it's the
> thin edge of the wedge which invites people to use an anti-pattern.
>
> Colin
>
Locked
