It is well-known that there are two different ways to generalize the theory of convergence of sequences to arbitrary topological spaces: nets and filters. They are of course essentially equivalent, but each has its own minor advantages for pedagogy and intuition. Seemingly less well-known is the following common generalization of both nets and filters:
Let $X$ be a topological space. Then a filternet (this is a term I made up) in $X$ consists of a set $I$, a filter $F$ on $I$, and a map $I\to X$ (written $i\mapsto x_i$). We say $(x_i)$ converges to a point $x\in X$ if for each neighborhood $U$ of $x$, $\{i\in I:x_i\in U\}\in F$.
If $I$ is a directed set, then we can take $F$ to be the "eventual" filter on $I$, and then $(x_i)$ converges to $x$ as a filternet iff it converges to $x$ as a net. On the other hand, if $F$ is a filter on $X$, we can take $I=X$ and $x_i=i$ for all $i$, and $(x_i)$ converges to $x$ iff the filter $F$ converges to $x$. So filternets include both filters and nets as special cases. Like filters and nets, filternets can be used to describe basic topological notions (closed sets, continuity, compactness, etc.) in terms of convergence. Pedagogically, filternets have some of the advantages of both filters and nets: like nets, they are intuitively similar to sequences (they have an index set, and it is obvious how to push them forward along maps), and like with filters, the theory of "subfilternets" and "ultrafilternets" is very simple and does not require you to change the index set.
While nets and filters are both quite well-represented in the literature, filternets are not so common. The main way I have seen them used is in talking about limits of sequences with respect to an ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$, usually in the context of talking about ultraproducts of metric spaces and related ideas (see this Wikipedia page, for instance). But this is still rather different from thinking of them as providing a general theory of convergence like nets and filters, and in fact I have never seen filternets used in this general way in any published work (I learned about them as a general theory of convergence from Nik Weaver, who just called them "nets", in my undergraduate pointset topology class). So, my question is:
Where have "filternets" been written about (as a general theory of convergence on topological spaces)? Is there a standard name for them? Who first invented them? Is there some kind of standard reference that covers them (e.g., a pointset topology textbook that uses them, or some well-known expository paper that discusses them alongside filters and nets)?
Best Answer
Per the OP's request from this comment I am posting some stuff about references I am aware of. Those references are mentioned in my (unfinished) notes on this topic and also in this answer and this conversation in chat. The purpose of reposting them here is that the linked resources have somewhat different scope and focus. Another reason is that if I list there references here, they will become better organized.
I repeat here some stuff mentioned already in Brian M. Scott's answer. But maybe it is not that bad to have one brief and concise answer and also a longer post which digresses a bit to some related stuff.
Since I mention results from various sources, terminology is a bit mixed in this post. But I always use the name filternet in the way you defined it. (This helps to unify terminology a bit; I mention some other places where this notion or some special case is defined, but several different names are used for the same concept in the literature.) If I mention other concepts, I hope it will be clear from the context which type of convergence of filters I mean.
General approach
As already mentioned in Brian M. Scott's answer, Bourbakists used the notion of filternet (in your terminology) in some of their works as a basic notion, which was defined first. (To be more precise, they use filter base more often than filter, but this difference is a very minor one.) They also define other notions related to convergence (such as cluster point or limit superior) in this generality and various types of limits were defined as special cases.
You could probably find this in several of their books. I am aware of this approach being used in:
In Dixmier's book this approach is very prominent. Already in Chapter II the notion of limit along a filter base is defined. (This is precisely your filternet.) Where possible, other notions are defined in a similar manner and results about them are shown in this generality. Cluster points (which the author calls adherence values) are defined in the same chapter. Limit superior and limit inferior is defined in Chapter VII (for $X=\mathbb R$). So if you are looking for a book which really uses the notion of filternet to build all theory related to convergence, this is the book I would certainly recommend.1
Other references which mention this type of convergence are:
There are also some textbooks in mathematical analysis, which introduce the filternet:
Both these books use the notion of filterbase (similarly as Bourbaki). I am aware that the latter will probably not be useful for you (unless you speak Slovak). But I am posting these two references mainly as evidence that this approach in the introductory analysis textbooks is probably not that uncommon and it is likely that some other similar texts exist. (Although it is probably not easy to find them. I knew about one of them since it was the book from which I was taught my second course in analysis. And I found the other one using Google Books.) The reason that this approach appears in some texts is, in my opinion, influence of Bourbaki which lead to striving to greatest possible generality. But I have admit that some proofs might be more economical in this setting.
Gera and Ďurikovič do not have any book by Bourbaki among references. In Zorich I have seen some books by Bourbaki, Cartan and Dieudonné. Maybe it would be possible to check the reference given in these books to see from where the authors took this approach. But this would be rather time-consuming undertaking.
Reduction of the general approach to limit of a filter.
Let me also briefly mention the comparison of the two notions:
The latter is the notion which, as far as I can say, appears quite frequently in texts on general topology. And it is rather clear that it is a special case of the former (as was explained already in your question.)
But it might be perhaps useful to notice that also the notion of filternet can be obtained relatively easily using the notion of limit of a filter. Namely if we have filternet $(\mathcal F,f\colon I\to X)$, then this filternet converges to the point $x$ if and only the filter generated by $\{f[F]; F\in\mathcal F\}$ converges to $x$.
The books mentioned above are the only references I am aware of which work in the same generality as suggested in your post. Let me allow to digress a bit from the question to mention two special cases, which are relatively important (and for which there is much more literature).
Ultrafilters and Stone-Čech compactification
In the case that $\mathcal F$ is an ultrafilter on $i$ and $X$ is a compact Hausdorff space, then the convergence of a filternet $\mathcal f: I\to X$ can be also interpreted in this way: If we endow $I$ with the discrete topology, then we can use the Stone-Čech compactification $\beta I$ on this space. The points of $\beta I$ correspond to ultrafilters on $I$. And the limit of an filternet $(\mathcal F, f\colon I\to X)$ is precisely the value of the unique extension of $f$ to $\overline f \colon \beta I \to X$ evaluated at $\mathcal F$. This is explained in more detail in my other answer.
If we know about this connection, it should not be too surprising that the notion of filternet also appears in some texts studying the Stone-Čech compactification. I will mention the two books where I have encountered this:
In Todorčević's book the notion of filternet is defined in the same way as in your post. (Definition 2 in Section 14.) However, both this notion and the Stone-Čech compactification are used only in one chapter of this book. Although this book only works with $I=\mathbb N$, it is mentioned several times in this chapter that everything works the same for arbitrary set.
The book of Hindman and Strauss is devoted solely to the Stone-Čech compactification. Therefore it devotes a bit more space to filternet than Todorcevic's book. Again, the definition given in this book is exactly the same as yours - see Definition 3.44.
Sequences
If we take $I=\mathbb N$, then we are dealing with sequences. For this case you can find more references.
The case when $\mathcal F$ is ultrafilter and the sequence is bounded is often mentioned in set-theoretical texts. This Google Books search returns Hrbacek-Jech and Komjáth-Totik, to mention just two examples. The first book where I have seen this notion we Balcar-Štěpánek: Teorie Množin (Set Theory, In Czech). I guess that there are some other texts from this area which mention this special case, i.e. limits of bounded sequences along ultrafilters.
Names for this notion
Let me also list here various name which are used for filternet in literature. (To some extent as a curiosity, but perhaps this might be useful when searching for other resources on the topic. Or maybe it might show that searching for something like this on internet might be rather difficult, because every author uses different terminology.)
1 Dixmier does not define the notion of Cauchy function with respect to filter base. A possible approach to Cauchyness is briefly explained in my notes. This is the only notion which appears in these notes for which I do not have a reference in a textbook. A special case of Cauchy condition for $I=X=\mathbb R$ is mentioned in the book by Gera and Ďurikovič.