On 27/04/16 09:31, Andrew Haley wrote:
It makes sense to me to. Having an innocently-named get() method throwing an exception is not something you see everyday. And in this case it's doubly confusing because one could imagine also a different behavior (i.e. return null if no object is there). So I'm in favor for making things clearer by choosing a more explicit name (whether the proposed one or a better one).what they say makes sense to me
Cheers Maurizio
