Should `dict.items()` be indexable now that dicts are ordered? I say yes. Why shouldn't it?

Would there be a way to ensure that this had the same time complexity as indexing of sequences? If "yes", I would support this — I think it would be useful in some situations, and it would be more efficient than existing mechanisms to obtain the nth key from a dictionary. If (as I presume), the answer is "no", then I would not support this — I think it would give the misleading impression that obtaining the  nth key/value from a dictionary is just as efficient as obtaining the nth item from a list or tuple.

Best,
Alex

On 10 Oct 2021, at 05:05, Finn Mason <finnjavier08@gmail.com> wrote:


On Sat, Oct 9, 2021, 9:56 PM Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
[Snip...]

Newbies won't know first() lives in itertools, and those experienced
enough to know it is there probably won't bother to use it.

A very good point.

Let's get back to the original topic. Should `dict.items()` be indexable now that dicts are ordered? I say yes. Why shouldn't it?


--
Finn Mason
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/OOR2AUMA7UMHHVW7XLLUXHTNKGRXTPU4/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/