Proposal: Kotlin collection literals

Collection Literals Proposal.md

Full KEEP Proposal Here

Old content of this gist here

Some random thoughts from someone whose opinion should probably not be given a whole lot of weight since I'm relatively new to Kotlin: as a long time Groovy, Python and Javasript user I very much appreciate the concision of Map literals in those languages. It is incredibly useful in creating DSLs, using in REPL contexts, and many other situations. I feel like when there's a common shared syntax between many languages with high similarity, there's a strong benefit in just using that too unless it sharply deviates from your principles. And one of the things I'm liking about Kotlin is that it doesn't seem to gratuitously differentiate its syntax from that of other languages : where it make sense for things to be the same they mostly are.

Which is all to say, I'd prefer a single character, either : or = as the map character, even if it does mean new syntax / slightly deviating from other conventions used in Kotlin.

@alanfo thank you for that! I don't think I like the = operator being used here because it would be unclear that assignment is not happening. For example:

var foo = "Foo"

var bar = [foo = "Bar"]

This seems, to me, unclear whether you get a map of foo to "Bar", or a list of foo, where foo has the value "Bar".

Using the hash symbol in this way certainly does not clash with current features, but... I would not be confident attempting to claim it for this feature, as it seems more fit for conditional compilation if we ever have that. Good idea, though, to use a special symbol as part of the operator.

@ssadedin I agree with you. Kotlin, among many other things, aims to be easy to learn for those who already know another programming language. It would be silly for us to use a brand new syntax for something so commonplace. That's why I chose the same syntax used in Groovy and Swift, which only barely differs from that used in Python and JS (square vs curly braces).

@BenLeggiero I agree with you that ':' seems on the face of it better than '='.

However, there was a development recently in another long running debate - whether to include the conditional (ternary) operator in Kotlin.

I've always been against this, partly because it's unnecessary when we already have the if/else expression, but mainly because '?' signifies something to do with nullability in Kotlin.

I thought that the latter would be the critical point but it turns out that the ':' is the problem! This is because the Kotlin team want to reserve its use for something else such as slices. So, if you do propose it for 'map' literals, you might run up against the same objection.

Thank you for the insight, @alanfo! That's very useful :)

I've released the first draft of the collection literals KEEP proposal. You can view it on my GitHub here:
https://github.com/BenLeggiero/KEEP/blob/collection-literals/proposals/collection-literals.md

I have started going over it and refining it to become a final draft before submitting a pull request. Any comments about it here would be greatly appreciated!

This is now in a KEEP proposal: Kotlin/KEEP#112
Please place further discussion there :)