BinaryenAddFunctionImport lost internalName on export, is this intentional?

Issue に示されている BinaryenAddFunctionImport の実装から始めて、BinaryenAddFunction と比較し、次に BinaryenGetFunction と export の命名で internalName がどのように使用されているかを調べます。import された関数の現在の動作を確認し、焦点を絞った回帰テストを追加する前に、どの API の動作または名前の保持を対象にすべきかを判断します。

 BinaryenAddFunctionImport(module, internalName, "env", "externalBaseName", params, result);
BinaryenFunctionRef func = BinaryenGetFunction(module, ret);
func->setExplicitName(internalName);

i think add and Get , It's a bit wasteful. why not return BinaryenFunctionRef on BinaryenAddFunctionImport?
i find that, BinaryenAddFunction directly setExplicitName. why not BinaryenAddFunctionImport?

void BinaryenAddFunctionImport(BinaryenModuleRef module,
                               const char* internalName,
                               const char* externalModuleName,
                               const char* externalBaseName,
                               BinaryenType params,
                               BinaryenType results) {
  auto* func = ((Module*)module)->getFunctionOrNull(internalName);
  if (func == nullptr) {
    auto func = std::make_unique<Function>();
    if (internalName)
      func->setExplicitName(internalName); 
    func->name = internalName;
    func->module = externalModuleName;
    func->base = externalBaseName;
    // TODO: Take a HeapType rather than params and results.
    func->type = Signature(Type(params), Type(results));
    ((Module*)module)->addFunction(std::move(func));
  } else {
    // already exists so just set module and base
    func->module = externalModuleName;
    func->base = externalBaseName;
  }
}