Hi Daniel,

> > -1: SharedPool deliberately doesn't use dictionary 
> >protocols.
> Well ok, but - 
> A. RB needs to know whether the bindings includes: name.
> B. In 3.6 some pools are dictionaries.

I understand this. The point was that we should think hard about which
protocols _do_ make sense for shared pools and for which ones we should make
up new ones. I'm not decided on #keys by the way - most of the trouble is
modifying pools and keys happens to be an inquiry. So I could live with
that.

> > > 4. Collection>>ifEmpty:ifNotEmpty: and variations.
> > -1: This should not be sneaked in as a "small change" given that it
> > significantly extends the collection protocol.
> Well, you caught me. Let the arguments begin :_)
> 
> > And is questionable in the
> > semantics - the asymmetry between #ifEmpty: (0-arg block) 
> > and #ifNotEmpty: (1-arg block) greatly disturbs me.
> Ok. I can go for 0-arg #ifNotEmpty:. Then we're ok? anybody else have
> strong feeling either way?

I'd be happy with any symmetric solution.

Cheers,
  - Andreas