ENH: Added dict support for `pd.set_option`
- [x] closes #61093
- [x] Tests added and passed](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#writing-tests) if fixing a bug or adding a new feature
- [x] All [code checks passed](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#pre-commit).
- [x] Added [type annotations](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#type-hints) to new arguments/methods/functions.
- [x] Added an entry in the latest `doc/source/whatsnew/vX.X.X.rst` file if fixing a bug or adding a new feature.

Hey @rhshadrach, the original issue has not been triaged yet, but I thought it was a worthwhile enhancement to improve code cleanliness. Please let me know what you think! > Can you also add the deprecation to the whatsnew.

Breaking an established API—especially for a marginal syntactic improvement—comes with a range of both tangible and intangible costs.

Also, we have the PDEP process that should be used for breaking API changes, even small ones?

A user that needs or wants to use a dictionary could simply do...

```python
d = {"a": 1, "b": 2, "c": 3}
flat_list = [elem for pair in d.items() for elem in pair]
print(flat_list)
# ['a', 1, 'b', 2, 'c', 3]
```

-1 > Also, we have the PDEP process that should be used for breaking API changes, even small ones?

No - https://pandas.pydata.org/pdeps/0001-purpose-and-guidelines.html

> A PDEP (pandas enhancement proposal) is a proposal for a major change in pandas > Breaking an established API—especially for a marginal syntactic improvement—comes with a range of both tangible and intangible costs.

I find this to be a rough edge in pandas. Is there another package that allows the specification of options/configurations/settings as an iterable of alternating key-value pairs? It seems to me like an odd choice for an API, and one that we can improve by having users supply a data structure that more naturally embodies the key-value relationship. The -1 is for the deprecation and not the enhancement. A PDEP to cover a deprecation of a single rough edge would be ridiculous.

I posted a question in the issue to further consider the deprecation proposal. This pull request is stale because it has been open for thirty days with no activity. Please [update](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/development/contributing.html#updating-your-pull-request) and respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this. Thanks @arthurlw 