Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Suggestion: make sequence and map interfaces more similar
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 01:31:32 +1100
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <mailman.155.1459261896.28225.python-list@python.org>
References: <CABbU2U_DsSC=6d0HOwgGnzQZ0=r6U2sf_zOJP0U_w7_i0RrOKQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.92.1459101740.28225.python-list@python.org> <56f8836b$0$1602$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <56FA8C71.4050306@rece.vub.ac.be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In-Reply-To: <56FA8C71.4050306@rece.vub.ac.be>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:105988

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> Op 28-03-16 om 03:05 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
>> When you add a new key:value to a dict, the other key:value pairs don't
>> change. That is the whole point of a mapping! Of course you can
>> deliberately change the value by re-assignment:
>>
>>     map[key] = new_value
>>
>> but that's not what I'm talking about. When you add a NEW key, the OTHER
>> keys DON'T change. That is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to a mapping. Anything which
>> lacks that property is not a mapping.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that.

I am. The similarity between "mapping with integers as keys" and
"sequence" is that both of them can be subscripted. And that's fine;
Python lets you define __getitem__ in any way you like. OrderedDict is
somewhere between "sequence with associated keys" and "mapping with
inherent order", and there's no problem with that.

But the definition of a sequence, and likewise the definition of a
mapping, goes deeper than that. A sequence has *relative* stability;
if one item is at a lower index than another, it will continue to be
at a lower index, until you change one of those two items. Changes
elsewhere in the sequence might bring them closer together or push
them further apart, but one of them is still earlier in the sequence
than the other. A mapping, on the other hand, has *absolute*
stability. Any given key->value relationship is stable in and of
itself. If you stuff a thing into a dict under a particular key, you
expect to be able to get it back using that key, not some other.

Sure, you can use a tuple to represent an immutable mapping between
dense integers and values. And there are times when that's perfectly
acceptable - here's two ways of depicting the month lengths in a
non-leap year in the Gregorian calendar:

mapping = {1: 31, 2: 28, 3: 31, 4: 30, 5: 31, 6: 30, 7: 31, 8: 31, 9:
30, 10: 31, 11: 30, 12: 31}
sequence = (None, 31, 28, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31)

Both of them let you look up 6 and get back that June has 30 days. The
sequence is forced to start from zero, but that's a small matter (and
if you number your months 0-11 instead of 1-12, no difference at all).
But the only operation these two data types truly share is
subscripting. If you want to be able to iterate over these in calendar
order, you don't switch out the dict for an OrderedDict - you use the
tuple. If you want to be able to use month names instead of numbers,
you don't mess around with the tuple - you use the dict.

The whole idea of making sequences and mappings more similar is highly
distasteful to me, and I've figured out why. It's the exact problem
with the PHP array - it's not sure whether to act as a mapping or a
sequence, and standard library functions can behave oddly in the
presence of all-numeric keys that aren't intended to be a sequence.
The two types are fundamentally different, and you almost never want
to treat them identically - at best, you want to have one specific
function that handles either type, and that's most cleanly handled
inside that function, not by adding mapping-like features to sequences
or vice versa.

ChrisA