Am 30.09.2004 um 13:03 schrieb Brent Pinkney:

>> 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.
>>
>> But not like that. Sorry this is really bad
>
> Yip - this is bad, Stef's refactoring are good. Better to have clean 
> CONSISTENT interface.
>

So you would argue that having

1 + 1.0

and

  1 + 3

is bad, too?

     Marcus