A provocative naming idea for "setter" methods

[Lendvai Attila]

I've got a little concern, tough: it's a base idea in Slate that
everything is based on uniform message sends. Consider the situation
where you have some old code in which you decide to replace a simple
slot-value+accessors with some complex get/set method implementations?
Then the new setter naming convention would _suggest_ that the method
called is a simple value setter, even tough it has been replaced with
something more complex method (which will probably still set some slot
value(s), but...).

Unfortunately I don't have a good real world example for this. I just
know that I like the idea that in Slate I'm free to replace a
slot+accessors with something more complex without changing the
interface of the object.

Some more toughts,

- 101