Concerning

	aCollection ifEmpty: [ ] ifNotEmpty: [ ]
	
why would I use that rather than

	aCollection isEmpty ifTrue: [ ] ifFalse: [ ]

I know it's a touch more intention-revealing, but only a touch,
and the isEmpty ifTrue:ifFalse: version is inlined, while the
ifEmpty:ifNotEmpty: version isn't.

	ifEmpty: [ ] ifNotEmptyDo: [ :v | ]
	
I _can_ see why to use that, when the collection would otherwise
not be available in an argument or temporary.  While I'm not a bigot
about the Law of Demeter, it does make me a bit uneasy about this.

Sticking with
    v := ...
    v isEmpty ifTrue: [ ] ifFalse: [...use v...].
means a smaller cognitive load, and as a bear of very little brain
I value small cognitive loads.

Note:  this is NOT opposition to these methods being added.  As far as
I can tell that wouldn't break anything, and the names _are_ intention-
revealing.  It's a simple question about whether it's better to stick
to a small number of #if* forms or to let them multiply and ignore the
inlining issue.