No, that seems like language bloat. Better to make your language have internal iterators, as then data structures can add their own logic that matches their need for iteration. Then special cases don't need additional syntax.
For example if you literally don’t care about the order then your code can map over a default iterator that is efficient (DFS).
Then, for some cases, depth-first traversal is needed; for others, breadth-first.
Then, there's parallelism, and even the plain old for loops aren't parallel by default.
By the time you specify exactly what you need from a tree traversal, you've written code to do it.
And if you're fine with some default choice — you already can use the default iterator with the for_each loop.
I don't see what need there is for adding an extra for_tree syntax to do that.
Trees are often considered too diverse to include even in the standard library, let alone as a primitive. Even Python doesn't have trees in the standard library. I'm sure it's been proposed and rejected at some point
I hate to be a broken record, but this again goes back to the assumption of a specific sequential computation model. Modelling relations as in SQL automatically supports for N-ary child relations. There are other computation models! eg. logic, relational, etc.
Let's be practical about it: the reason you might want to say map_tree is so it could potentially be optimized to run more quickly, e.g. via automatic parallelization.
But to even parallelize a tree read operation we'd have to pull in other threads, split work, we'd want metadata on each node (child counts), and at the end of the day within each worker you'd still have a serial execution order.
For map_tree to have practical benefit your language would need to make a ton of opinionated choices about trees and parallel programming. Feasible? Yes. Worth making it a basic primitive? Well, even LISPs don't offer map_tree, despite building the whole language on top of car/cdr.
Because "trees" and "graphs" aren't actually single concepts, they're families of concepts that can vary along many dimensions. Most programming languages offer one or a small handful of sequence types, because most sequence use patterns are the same. Most languages don't offer a tree or graph type, and as soon as you try to implement one you see why: there are multiple different kinds of trees and graphs, and multiple different representations that are appropriate for different use cases, and any one you might pick would be unsuitable for most programs people want to write.
I think it's more because the abstract interfaces for trees and graphs that can support multiple representations aren't as well known [1]. An iterator/sequence interface has a simple abstract structure that everyone immediately understands, but the structure needed to abstract over graphs and trees are trickier.
[1] https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/andrey-mokhov/alg...