On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:53 AM, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

On May 20, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Bernat Romagosa wrote:

> If we understand nil as the empty set (like some other languages do),

???
No nil is not the empty set this is the undefined object.

Stef

> then Set with: nil is not any different than Set with: Set new.
>
> 2011/5/20 Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com>
> On 20 May 2011 04:13, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Since a year ago, we have this issue:
> >
> > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1907
> >
> > There were 2 solutions proposed, and the 2 were developed by different
> > people. �But for some reason it was not integrated and continuously
> > postponed.
> >
> > So, my question is: Do we want Sets accepting nil? �If we don't, the issue
> > is invalid. �If we do, can someone review the code proposed?
> >
>
> Its not invalid. Stef reminds me about it from time to time.
> And actually we wanted to sit and review and integrate it but it
> always something else needs our attention.
>
> > Thanks!
> > Guille
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>