The #in: family actually sounds pretty good to me.  (I hadn't realized
#in: was in the system; I do like the idea!).  I like #inIfNotNil:
better than #ifNotNilIn:, though -- the first sounds more gramatical.


	-Lex



Dan Ingalls <Dan.Ingalls at disney.com> wrote:
> Joshua Channing Gargus <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> asked...
> >What is the difference between doIfNotNil: and ifNotNil:?
> 
> ... and then answered his own question.
> 
> Since it's on the table, though, I want to say that
> I actually don't like the name doIfNotNil, in light of a long
> discussion several years ago that wound up condemning do:
> as defined by singleton objects (with which I basically agree).
> We wound up renaming that message to be 'in:' which is so
> general as to be meaningless, and nobody uses it as a result.
> 
> So when it came to name this method, I couldn't hack 'ifNotNilIn:',
> and fell back on this 'do' flavor.
> 
> Since the end result is <someBlock> value: <some receiver>, 
> the patterns should probably be
> 
> 	expr beValueFor: block
> 	expr ifNotNilBeValueFor: block
> or
> 	expr evaluate: block
> 	expr ifNotNilEvaluate: block
> 
> Has this all been hashed around in other Smalltalks with some reaonable outcome?
> 
> 	- Dan