Jonathan Worthington wrote:
On 30/09/2010 21:38, Darren Duncan wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Of alternatives you didn't mention, I like "put" - as pithy as "get"
and "set", with plenty of corresponding history (SmallTalk, POSIX,
HTTP,...).
Actually, *yes*. I didn't think of this one at the time but when you
mentioned the various history of pairs I then thought of get/put
related to I/O, as well as FTP, etc.
Also "put" is clearly an action like "get" is, and they're the same
length as you say, while "set" is both an action and not an action.
So I amend my prior comment to highly recommend that "set" be renamed
to "put" in contexts such as attribute accessors like this.
The problem with put/set etc. is that they tend to fail to distinguish
binding from assignment (which is bad - there's a reason we have
different operators for them). In the REPR API I called this thing
bind_attr to be clear that's what it's doing.
Fair enough. I stand by my general comment that "set" shouldn't be used for
things such as this and that there are better alternatives. -- Darren Duncan
