On Wednesday, 18 April 2018 at 21:04:53 UTC, Jordan Wilson wrote:
Thinking seems sound, although having a name starting with "get" does have the advantage of being more related to the existing get.
Ah yes, good point. I think now we've had the discussion about other use cases though that ultimately there might need to be an "atomic" AddOrUpdate style function too, which I was thinking could just be called 'update'. The necessity to keep them all starting with get seemed less important.
