Suggestion: make sequence and map interfaces more similar

[Rustom Mody]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 6:38:56 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 31-03-16 om 13:57 schreef Chris Angelico:
> > 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.
> 
> What a strange request. Whether or not something is worth discussing
> is a personal judgement. So there can be no proof of such a thing.
> I would say: judge for yourself and act accordingly.

Not been following this thread much
And not much interest in the suggestion/request
Just thought I'd give a take on what may be the motivation for this

There is the allure of One-Fundamental-Data-structure
Lisp calls that 'list'
[40 years after with more fanfare and less clarity replicated as XML]

Math calls that 'function'
Even more fundamental in CS than in math
That maps are same as functions is standard math.
In python one interconverts data→code by going from dict d to d.get
code→data by memoization/caching
How about a Grand Unified Theory?

[Just to be clear -- not my interest or wish]