+1

You are right.

Dave

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 04:10:23PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
> Take a gander at the API of ProtoObject by arrowing through the
> categories/protocols, one by one.
> 
> It's pretty clean, and I think everything we have there qualifies as
> "absolutely needs", don't you?
> 
> But the one that's missing is #notNil.  I mean, we've got #ifNil: and
> #ifNotNil:.  We've got #isNil but not #notNil.  Proxy code should be
> able to reliably use notNil as much as isNil rather than setting a
> trap.  No one will ever override notNil..
> 
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> 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.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >