On Oct 6, 2008, at 11:28 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
I agree with Lukas, and the other comments on the naming that really you imply a test for nil first before the empty. My experience with coming across and recalling heavy usage is that the receiver is always a String. I took it to be a convenience (laziness) for typing the longer form during string processing that is perhaps written in a procedural manner. If the receiver is treated like a collection, i.e. using do: select: etc then an empty collection is a fine null object. Don't mind it being dropped, but perhaps it could remain on String? Is the convenience justified?
I can imagine that there are some cases where you want to make a distinction between no result and empty result from an UI perspective. But I learned something from this thread. And probably we should deprecated it. stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
