On Thursday, 19 April 2018 at 08:20:02 UTC, Giles Bathgate wrote:
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.
How about something like "forceGet" to make clear you will get
it, even if it wasn't there before.
