On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, David T. Lewis wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 02:28:10PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't think that *anything* should go into ProtoObject unless it
> absolutely needs to be there. Period.
>
> ProtoObject is intended to be minimal, and we should take care to
> keep it so.

I agree with that, but most of the nil-testing protocol is already there.
And there's some asymmetry because of #isNil and #notNil. So adding 
another method wouldn't make the situation worse, but it would unify the 
system.


Levente

>
> Dave
>
>
>