On 4/8/2010 9:22 PM, Colin Putney wrote:
>
> On 2010-04-07, at 9:38 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> Folks -
>>
>> I've been thinking about this for a while now and it seems to me that there's little harm done if we implement Object>>is: to just return false at this point. This doesn't say anything about whether we should use it or how we should use it but it seems to me that it would be a useful compatibility method to have, just in case someone wants to use it in an external package.
>>
>> Any strong opposition to that change?
>
> Yes. I think #is: is a bad idea all around, and we shouldn't be encouraging it.

Even if used purely as a measure of compatibility?
What I was thinking about was an implementation that just said:

Object>>is: aSymbol
	"For compatibility only"
	^false

Cheers,
   - Andreas