Proposal: Keep get{FieldName} function in the single value table

[CrazyNorman]

Now if the table has only one filed in the schemas, the get{FileName} and set{FiledName} function will be removed from the table code generating. However this can cause code refactoring when I add one filed in the shema. Maybe we can reserve the get{FileName} and set{FiledName} to avoid this troublesome. The extra gas cost for reserve these two functions should be acceptable.

[dk1a]

I think more functions should be free gas-wise, they aren't kept because that'd double the functions in table lib making it harder to read/use (there're more methods than set/get, and with 1-field tables just using get/read/push/pop/... is really convenient imo).
But I agree that at least a config option to force the postfixes in 1-field tables, so they're like multi-fields ones (for ppl planning to potentially add more fields) would be useful

[CrazyNorman]

Yes, having a config option to control the function convention will be very helpful. It is very common you define a table config with single value at first then add a field later during the development process.

[holic]

Just ran into this when prototyping a thing, and I agree that it would be clearer if we kept getField methods.