Suggestion: make sequence and map interfaces more similar

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> Op 31-03-16 om 12:36 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 06:52 pm, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>
>>> it is your burden to argue that problem.
>> No it isn't. I don't have to do a thing. All I need to do is sit back and
>> wait as this discussion peters off into nothing. The burden isn't on me to
>> justify the status quo. The burden is on those who want to make this change
>> to justify the change, because if you don't, the status quo stays exactly
>> the same.
>
> Sure that is all very well if you stay out of the discussion, or limit
> your contribution to mentioning that in your opinion that this is a
> very low priority. I have no problem with that. But if you begin to
> argue that the proposal has flaws and you argue against it then it
> is your intellectual responsibility to support your arguments.
>
> There is a difference between, (1) this proposal is flawed and (2)I
> don't think this is important enough. Starting with the first and then
> when pressed to support it, retreating to the second is not fair.
>

Okay. I'll put a slightly different position: Prove that your proposal
is worth discussing by actually giving us an example that we can
discuss. So far, this thread has had nothing but toy examples (and
bogoexamples that prove nothing beyond that the author knows how to
mess with Python - fun, but not a strong argument on either side).
Give us some real meat to work with, instead of these drips of
tantalizing blood.

ChrisA