Yes, ifNotEmptyDo: and ifNotNilDo: are for compatibility with other Smalltalks. The rule was added to communicate this in some way.
Cheers. Uko > On 10 Oct 2015, at 18:55, Peter Uhnák <i.uh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Collection>>ifNotEmpty: comment says > > "If the block has an argument, eval with the receiver as its argument, > but it might be better to use ifNotEmptyDo: to make the code easier to > understand" > > yet when I do that, Code Critic complains: > ifNotEmptyDo: should not be used as ifNotEmpty: works for blocks with > arguments, too. > > > 1) who is right? what should I use? > 2) shouldn't one be deprecated then? (or maybe one of them is to be > compatible with other smalltalks?) > > Thanks, > Peter > >
