I see the point.

Especially the fact that receiver is a collection make sense but this 
is not consistent and not transparent.
I hate to have to read a method body to understand what is does because 
we have abstraction but we break it.

Marcus for the
1 + 1.0 I is not at the same level because plus is overloaded and we 
use that since we are kids.

When I read
ifNotEmpty:

I associate it with all the methods such as ifTrue:
ok this is a conditional and conditional do not take block arguments. 
And now I have this particular method
that does it.....sure! and without any distinctive signs from its user 
interface. Even better.

So I understand than for compatibility reasons we want to keep that but 
at least:
	- we should update the comment!!!!
	- then be consistent with the other methods


>> For me I do not understand what it means to require an argument, in 
>> this case this is not
>> 	ifNotEmpty: [do that]
>> 	but ifNotEmpty: [do that with self]
>> and the message does not tell that at all
>>
>> and why we have that for ifNotEmpty and not for ifTrue: and isNil:
>
> Because in the case of ifTrue: and ifNil: (as well as ifFalse:), if 
> the block is evaluated then you know exactly what the receiver is, so 
> there's no need to pass it in.
> This is also mostly true for #ifEmpty:, in that you know that you've 
> got an empty collection, and that's probably all you care about.  In 
> the case of #ifNotNil: or #ifNotEmpty:, however, there are interesting 
> things about the receiver (for #ifNotNil:, what the instance is, for 
> #ifNotEmpty:, what instances it contains) that you *don't* know, and 
> so passing the receiver into the block is very useful.
>
> I generally agree with you about the message names, in that I'd rather 
> see ifNotEmptyDo: (to match #ifNotNilDo:) as a distinct method from 
> #ifNotEmpty:.  However, there's a compatibility issue here - other 
> dialects expect #ifNotNil: and #ifNotEmpty: to take a 1-arg block, and 
> we should probably follow suit.  As it is I have to avoid using either 
> message if I want my code to be portable, which is a shame.
>
> Avi
>
>