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.


On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM,  <commits at source.squeak.org> 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!
>
>