Should set_elem be renamed to put_elem?

[josevalim]

Throughout the standard library, we have always chosen the word "put" instead of "set". The only remaining function is set_elem/3. The question is: is it worthy renaming the function to put_elem/3 or should it be kept as set_elem/3 to be closer to the Erlang variant?

[chrismccord]

I vote for the change to put_elem for consistency. The standard library is quite nice in its conventions, so why not nail down the low hanging fruit before it's harder to change post 1.0? :)

[hamiltop]

+1 for put_elem

[bitwalker]

Agreed, seems like something worth making consistent.

[knewter]

+1, put_elem.

[MSch]

👍 for put_elem from me

[fishcakez]

Can we get delete_elem too? I needed once and it wasn't there. It's a very rare one though so maybe not required.

[josevalim]

@fishcakez this one is in the Tuple module (which I should probably start inlining).