>> transform
>> Collection>>ifNotEmpty: aBlock
>>
>> 	^ self isEmpty
>> 		ifFalse: [aBlock valueWithPossibleArgs: {self}]
>>
>> into
>>
>> ifNotEmpty: aBlock
>> 	
>> 	^ self isEmpty
>> 		ifFalse: [aBlock value]
>>
>> which corresponds to the method comment
>> 	Evaluate the block unless I'm empty"
>> 	!
>> <ifNotEmptyCleans.cs.gz>
>>
>
> No good idea: we need to support *both*
>
>   aCollection ifNotEmpty: [:arg | arg doSomething]
>
> and
>
>  aCollection ifNotEmpty: [ self doSomething].
>
>
> This is really important, as VW and RB define  ifNotEmpty: to require 
> a block,

you mean anargument?

> 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.


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:

Really I do not understand and as a user of the interface I do not get 
that at all.

IF people need that then why don't they write	
		ifNotEmptyDoWithMe: []


> 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.

But not like that. Sorry this is really bad

>
>
>   Marcus
>
>