Oct. 24, 2009
1:19 a.m.
Ben Finney wrote:
Which then raises the question “what part of the set does it get?”, which the function signature does nothing to answer. I'm proposing that a no-parameters ‘set.get’ is needlessly confusing to think about.
The fact that set.get() is just set.pop() without removing the result from the set seems perfectly straightforward.
Since the use case is so specific, I would expect the name to be specific too, to better match the use case.
The use case is no more specific than set.pop(). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------