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 tim
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
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
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> I would argue that naming accessors get/set is a bad idea, "set" in
> particular, because "set" would easily evoke thoughts of having something to
> do with "set" collection types and values.
That's a valid point . . .
> But regardless of w
