But we're not talking about *dict*, we're talking about dict.items which
returns a set-like object:

py> from collections.abc import Set
py> isinstance({}.items(), Set)
True

So dict.items isn't subscriptable because it's an unordered set, not a
sequence.

Or is it a set because it can’t be indexed? If I have the history right, dict.items was first implemented with the “old” dict implementation, which did not preserve order, but did provide O(1) access, so making the dict views set-like was easy, and making them Sequences was impossible.

But now dicts do preserve order, and so making the dict views sequence-like IS possible, and can be done efficiently—so why not?

But if a simple indexable dict is all you need, try writing a subclass.

I don’t think it’s possible to make that efficient without access to the dict internals.

-CHB