[Feature] Nicer syntax for querying `mapping`s dynamically

[AleoAlexander]

🚀 Feature

Dynamic dispatch allows calling functions from a callee determined at runtime, while still allowing static calls

// Static (allowed)
target.aleo::method(args)

// Dynamic (allowed)
Interface@(target)::method(args)

However, interfaces can also define mappings. Currently though, the intuitive syntax for reading from mappings dynamically is not supported:

// Static (allowed)
target.aleo::mapping_name.get(key)

// Dynamic (NOT allowed)
Interface@(target)::mapping_name.get(key)

We should also support reading from storage types dynamically

// Static (allowed)
target.aleo::variable_name.unwrap_or(0u64);
target.aleo::vector_name.get(0u32);
target.aleo::vector_name.len();

// Dynamic (NOT allowed)
Interface@(target)::variable_name.unwrap_or(0u64);
Interface@(target)::vector_name.get(0u32);
Interface@(target)::vector_name.len();

Updated: 4/3/26, 12:09 ET

[IGI-111]

This is available using instrinsics: #29233

let exists: bool = _dynamic_contains(prog, net, mapping, key);
let val: u64 = _dynamic_get::[u64](prog, net, mapping, key);
let val: u64 = _dynamic_get_or_use::[u64](prog, net, mapping, key, 0u64);

[AleoAlexander]

Ah I had missed that. I'm not a fan of that syntax though. It feels very inconsistent with the dynamic function calls. I think we should support the syntax I described above. This is similar to how the old Leo syntax was Mapping::get(name, key), but then we added name.get(key) which was much better IMO

Should we add the intrinsics pattern to the docs?

[IGI-111]

Having a nicer syntax for dynamic mapping access is a natural extension and makes sense, I agree. I guess that's the feature request here.

And yeah the docs should mention the existence of those new intrinsics if they don't already.

[AleoAlexander]

Also, we should include storage (variables and vectors) if possible.

[mohammadfawaz]

Yes this extension makes sense to me.