Suggestion: make sequence and map interfaces more similar

[Marco Sulla]

On 31 March 2016 at 04:40, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> Enough of the hypothetical arguments about what one could do or might do.
> Let's see a concrete example of actual real world code used in production,
> not a mickey-mouse toy program, where it is desirable that adding or
> deleting one key will modify the rest of the keys in the mapping.


1. the example was for confuting your assertion that an implementation
of sequences as extended classes of maps violate the map contract.
2. I already linked a real-world example previously. Google it and you
can find tons of examples like that.


On 31 March 2016 at 04:44, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> for a, b in zip(spam, eggs):
>     # do some stuff, sometimes assign x[a] or b[a] or who knows what?
>
>
> Does this mean that "lists, dicts and zip" should all support the same
> interface?

I do not understand what you mean with this example. A zip object is
not a sequence nor a map. My definition of sequences as "ordered maps
with integer keys that start from zero and have no gaps" is perfectly
valid as I demonstrated to you, while zip objects have nothing in
common with sequences and maps, apart the fact they are all iterables.