Re: not using get/set (was Re: [perl6/specs] 4d77c0: ...)

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.

-- Darren Duncan

• [perl6/specs] 4d77c0: Merge branch 'master' of github.com:perl6/specs by noreply
• not using get/set (was Re: [perl6/specs] 4d77c0: ...) by Darren Duncan
• Re: not using get/set (was Re: [perl6/specs] 4d77c0: ...) by Mark J. Reed
• Re: not using get/set (was Re: [perl6/specs] 4d77c0: ...) by Darren Duncan
• Re: not using get/set (was Re: [perl6/specs] 4d77c0: ...) by Jonathan Worthington
• Re: not using get/set (was Re: [perl6/specs] 4d77c0: ...) by Darren Duncan