!= does not look a good name according to first feedbacks.
A long version could simply be notEquals:
For a short version, more opinions/suggestions are welcomed

Le 26 juin 2014 �� 13:27, Sven Van Caekenberghe a ��crit :

> -1 for replacing ~= with != because it is not better at all
> +1 for avoiding it altogether like you suggest
> -1 for changing ~= to mean #closeTo: I like the longer name
>
> my 2c
>
> On 26 Jun 2014, at 10:15, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to make a suggestion that may lead to a long debate but let's go: What do you think about deprecating ~= and replace it with != for example?
>> Why? In mathematics the symbol ~ is used for equivalence. To me (and I think any newcomer to Smalltalk) the first guess of the meaning of ~= is equivalent to => missed. The meaning is totally different: "Answer whether the receiver and the argument do not represent the same object."
>>
>> I never used this method because it is too confusing for me. I prefer to use (a = b) not or (a = b) ifFalse:.
>> So, the discussion is open ...
>>
>> Christophe
>
>