notNil, et al, to ProtoObject?

> Levente Uzonyi uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Trunk:
> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Collections-ul.542.mcz
>
> ==================== Summary ====================
>
> Name: Collections-ul.542
> Author: ul
> Time: 26 October 2013, 12:22:26.493 am
> UUID: e52fefbe-fb04-46f4-a956-f7bbcb5c8965
> Ancestors: Collections-cmm.541
>
> Make Dictionary >> #includesKey: more lightweight.
>
> =============== Diff against Collections-cmm.541 ===============
>
> Item was changed:
>   ----- Method: Dictionary>>includesKey: (in category 'testing') -----
>   includesKey: key
>         "Answer whether the receiver has a key equal to the argument, key."
>
> +        ^(array at: (self scanFor: key)) ~~ nil "We could use #notNil here, but ProtoObject doesn't understand it."!
> -       self at: key ifAbsent: [^false].
> -       ^true!
>
>

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Levente Uzonyi uploaded a new version of Collections to project The Trunk:
>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Collections-ul.542.mcz
>>
>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>
>> Name: Collections-ul.542
>> Author: ul
>> Time: 26 October 2013, 12:22:26.493 am
>> UUID: e52fefbe-fb04-46f4-a956-f7bbcb5c8965
>> Ancestors: Collections-cmm.541
>>
>> Make Dictionary >> #includesKey: more lightweight.
>>
>> =============== Diff against Collections-cmm.541 ===============
>>
>> Item was changed:
>>   ----- Method: Dictionary>>includesKey: (in category 'testing') -----
>>   includesKey: key
>>         "Answer whether the receiver has a key equal to the argument, key."
>>
>> +        ^(array at: (self scanFor: key)) ~~ nil "We could use #notNil here, but ProtoObject doesn't understand it."!
>> -       self at: key ifAbsent: [^false].
>> -       ^true!
>>
>>
>
>

> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Chris Muller wrote:
>
>> Does it make sense to have 5 of the 9 nil-testing methods on
>> ProtoObject, and the remaining 4 on Object?  It seems like the various
>> forms of nil-testing are something any code should feel free to do.
>>
>> I think we should move the remaining 4 to ProtoObject.
>
>
> It depends on the role of ProtoObject and Object. Which are those methods?
>
>
> Levente
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Levente Uzonyi uploaded a new version of Collections to project The
>>> Trunk:
>>> http://source.squeak.org/trunk/Collections-ul.542.mcz
>>>
>>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>>
>>> Name: Collections-ul.542
>>> Author: ul
>>> Time: 26 October 2013, 12:22:26.493 am
>>> UUID: e52fefbe-fb04-46f4-a956-f7bbcb5c8965
>>> Ancestors: Collections-cmm.541
>>>
>>> Make Dictionary >> #includesKey: more lightweight.
>>>
>>> =============== Diff against Collections-cmm.541 ===============
>>>
>>> Item was changed:
>>>   ----- Method: Dictionary>>includesKey: (in category 'testing') -----
>>>   includesKey: key
>>>         "Answer whether the receiver has a key equal to the argument,
>>> key."
>>>
>>> +        ^(array at: (self scanFor: key)) ~~ nil "We could use #notNil
>>> here, but ProtoObject doesn't understand it."!
>>> -       self at: key ifAbsent: [^false].
>>> -       ^true!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 02:28:10PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
>> Does it make sense to have 5 of the 9 nil-testing methods on
>> ProtoObject, and the remaining 4 on Object?  It seems like the various
>> forms of nil-testing are something any code should feel free to do.
>>
>> I think we should move the remaining 4 to ProtoObject.
>
> I don't think that *anything* should go into ProtoObject unless it
> absolutely needs to be there. Period.
>
> ProtoObject is intended to be minimal, and we should take care to
> keep it so.
>
> Dave
>
>

> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 02:28:10PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
>> Does it make sense to have 5 of the 9 nil-testing methods on
>> ProtoObject, and the remaining 4 on Object?  It seems like the various
>> forms of nil-testing are something any code should feel free to do.
>>
>> I think we should move the remaining 4 to ProtoObject.
>
> I don't think that *anything* should go into ProtoObject unless it
> absolutely needs to be there. Period.
>
> ProtoObject is intended to be minimal, and we should take care to
> keep it so.

> Take a gander at the API of ProtoObject by arrowing through the
> categories/protocols, one by one.
>
> It's pretty clean, and I think everything we have there qualifies as
> "absolutely needs", don't you?
>
> But the one that's missing is #notNil.  I mean, we've got #ifNil: and
> #ifNotNil:.  We've got #isNil but not #notNil.  Proxy code should be
> able to reliably use notNil as much as isNil rather than setting a
> trap.  No one will ever override notNil..
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 02:28:10PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
> >> Does it make sense to have 5 of the 9 nil-testing methods on
> >> ProtoObject, and the remaining 4 on Object?  It seems like the various
> >> forms of nil-testing are something any code should feel free to do.
> >>
> >> I think we should move the remaining 4 to ProtoObject.
> >
> > I don't think that *anything* should go into ProtoObject unless it
> > absolutely needs to be there. Period.
> >
> > ProtoObject is intended to be minimal, and we should take care to
> > keep it so.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >