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
