Re: Renaming map->dict, class->type?

On 26/11/2013 06:41, Jan Wielemaker wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 08:32 PM, Paulo Moura wrote:
>> On 25/11/2013, at 19:43, Jan Wielemaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Just wondering, should we rename `map' into `dict'?  The problem is
>>> that we also have the `map' concept as in maplist/N, map_assoc/2,3,
>>> etc. This will change the documentation as well as rename the map_*
>>> predicates.

Good point.  "Map" shouldn't be overloaded.  "Dict" will be familiar to 
many scripting language programmers.  It does have strong imperative 
associations, though, which I think will encourage its overuse when 
better data structures are available.  "Object" or maybe even "frame" 
might be better.


>>> The second issue with maps that currently, in x{a:1}, 'x' is
>>> called the `class'.  That might be a too much object oriented term.
>>> Would `type' be better?  This term only appears in the
>>> documentation.

>> But words are overloaded :( I would prefer "type" over "class" for
>> the same reason you state above. Maybe "kind"?

But it's nothing like a "type!"  Why would we say x{a:1} and x{b:c} have 
the same type?  Isn't it just a "tag?"

> Maybe right.  At this moment, `type' isn't a very important concept
> in Prolog, but surely we would like to keep the option open to
> change that.  I'm not against "kind", especially if there is a
> precedent.  Does anyone know that?

I'm used to kinds as "types of types."  Much prefer "tag."


     Jeff Schultz