RFC: field name translations

[shimmur]

RFC: field name translations

[idlehands]

I have requested @GeoffreyPS also weigh in.

[lmarlow]

I like the implicit style, it feels more ergonomic.

[GeoffreyPS]

I welcome this feature. I also like the implicit style as the other more explicit style is very verbose as proposed (and I'm not sure how to reduce that).

[GeoffreyPS]

I'm trying to think of edge cases but I'm not sure if they are able to be encountered or real problems:

• Name collisions
  I don't think this is an issue since the mapping is provided

• It's possible to have multiple instances of the same entry in keyword lists
  Determining a last-one-wins or first-one-wins default should be sufficient, but maybe that should generate a warning.

• How this interacts with #39
  I think one would have to assume that the list of key-value structures/map-likes would be the same in nature (e.g., a list of exclusively users or exclusively addresses) and not a list of multiple kinds of entities.