One subroutine with 3 names and 3 different behaviours, sounds an aweful lot like it ought to be 3 subroutines with their own names, that call a 4th subroutine for their common behaviour--at least to me.
Is there a good reason for avoiding the obvious solution?
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
The "good enough" maybe good enough for the now, and perfection maybe unobtainable, but that should not preclude us from striving for perfection, when time, circumstance or desire allow.