[CLOSED] Use get for maps and [..] for lists?

[konnov]

Currently, we have the operator f[e] reserved for maps (TLA+ functions), and l.nth(i) reserved for lists.

I find that I always want to write f.get(e) knowing that f is a map (indeed, we can just write f.get(e) in Quint). Also, I would rather write l[i] for a list.

Shall we just use l[i] as a syntax sugar for lists instead of maps? We would still be able to use get and nth for maps and lists, respectively.

[shonfeder]

This would help with one of the inconsistencies i noted in #93, so I am in favor.

I think we should also consider renaming map to dictionary so we avoid all the ambiguities between the map data structure and the map operations over collections.

[konnov]

@shonfeder, you have envisioned all the problems with maps in May. I am still surprised how I am bumping my head against your list :D

[bugarela]

Alternatively, we could use words starting with capital letters for constructors and types, like Map and Set, and then have map for the operation over lists (or sets) and even set as a replacement for with or update.

To visualize and type, I really like how most of TNT is lowercase, but people are used to having capital letters in programming languages, so it's fine.

[konnov]

upper case Map and Set is an interesting idea

[konnov]

Implemented in #321. Closing the discussion.