I have no preference for the name, but I agree there's no reason to divide
this functionality in two.
On Feb 28, 2015 1:49 PM, "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Nicolas Petton <nicolas@petton.fr>
> > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:24:55 +0100
> >
> > I'm working on another library similar to seq.el but for maps (alists
> > and hash-tables for now).
> >
> > I have an issue with naming regarding mapping over keys/values of a
> > map. I thought about calling `map-map' the function that would map over
> > the keys and values of map, and `map-map-keys' the function that would
> > map over the keys of a map, etc.
>
> Are there any reasons why we couldn't have map-keys that could accept
> any object where such an operation makes sense?  IOW, why do we have
> to use different functions for different classes of objects, instead
> of having a single polymorphic interface?  That would solve the naming
> issue as a nice side effect, and more importantly, will allow the
> programmer to remember fewer symbols.
>
>
>