> This is really important, as VW and RB define  ifNotEmpty: to require a 
> block,

VW does not define such a message. 

What is the semantic we want ifNotEmpty: to have?
Before Stef's email I always thought that writing:
  obj ifNotEmpty: [...]
is equivalent to:
  obj notEmpty ifTrue: [...]

I believe it should be.

In a 5987 image, all the sender of ifNotEmpty: does not expect any passed argument.

Alexandre

> but squeak's implementation used to not require one. So we need the 
> implementation
> that allows both, or we need to fix a lot of senders.
> 
> I really like the valueWithPossibleArgs: thingy: It does a 
> double-dispatch on the number of arguments
> of the block, and just does the right thing. We really should keep it.
> 
> 
>   Marcus
> 

-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~bergel
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.