Suggestion: make sequence and map interfaces more similar

[Mark Lawrence]

On 31/03/2016 14:27, Random832 wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016, at 09:17, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote:
>> On 31/03/2016 14:08, 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.
>>
>> Drivel.  This is comp.lang.python, where "Practicality beats purity"
>> every time, not comp.theoretical.claptrap.
>
> So can we discuss how a unified method to get a set of all valid
> subscripts (and/or subscript-value pairs) on an object would be a useful
> thing to have without getting bogged down in theoretical claptrap about
> the meaning of the mapping contract?
>

We can discuss anything here until the cows come home, but it's a 
complete waste of time if the powers that be over on python-ideas and/or 
python-dev don't agree.  This was suggested a day or two back but seems 
to have gone completely over people's heads.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence