[m-dev.] for review: improvements for record syntax

[Ralph Becket]

>From schachte at cs.mu.OZ.AU on 10/12/2000 22:50:29
> You didn't think we were going to reach an armistice in the syntax wars,
> did you? ;-)

If only we could disguise these things as semantic issues...

> > How about:
> > 	X = Map ^ entry(Key)
> > and	Map ^ entry(Key) := Y
> 
> `entry' is not bad, and I agree it's better than `value'.  How about
> `item'?  It sounds like about the same meaning to me as `elem', but
> it's not an abbreviation.  And it's a letter shorter than `entry'
> and `value'.  I'd mark my (preference-based) ballot:

My original thinking was that, since maps are partial functions, a
good name would be `image', as in `Map ^ image(Key)'.

This didn't go down too well, so my next thought was that maps define
relationships between keys and values, hence `Map ^ value(Key)'.

`elem[ent]', `entry' and `item' all fail to suggest the functional
nature of maps to me, although I could probably live with `item' if
I had to.

One possibility is to stick with the status quo and have

	Map ^ lookup(Key)
	Map ^ set(Key) := Value

--
Ralph Becket      |      MSR Cambridge      |      rbeck at microsoft.com 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------