Suggestion: make sequence and map interfaces more similar

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 07:27 pm, Tim Golden wrote:

> FWIW I'm broadly with Antoon here: wider-ranging discussions can be
> interesting and useful. 

Sure. But sometimes conversations are going nowhere:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php


[...]
> If it becomes clear that the poster is in fact pushing for a change
> (either intelligently thought-out or naively ill-considered) then I
> would push them towards Python-ideas sooner than later, because that's
> exactly the purpose of *that* mailing list. People on python-ideas want
> to go to and fro over the relative merits of proposals. Specifically, I
> believe that's the only mailing list which GvR follows apart from
> python-dev. Any discussion here would likely have to be repeated over
> there anyway, so why not go there earlier on?

Informally, ideas are supposed to have an initial "sanity check" here to
avoid the really silly ideas:


Q: "Suggestion: I'm sick of writing

for key, value in other_dict.items():
    mydict[key] = value

I think that dicts should have a method to copy all the keys and values from
another dict."

A: "You mean dict.update?"


Or perhaps:

Q: "I think that object oriented programming is too inefficient. I think
that Python should get rid of all the objects and just be a lightweight,
easy-to-read wrapper around C, with the same semantics and limitations as
the 1988 C standard."

A: "Surely you aren't serious?"


But most people don't bother passing ideas through here first, they just go
straight to Python-Ideas.




-- 
Steven