On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Given that it's really only a very minor problem, I'd rather not expend the effort to 'fix" this.
I do agree that there is a policy decision to be made about when it's appropriate to make a protocol change, and that this should be left to you, Guido.
But i think this is more than a minor problem. This is a namespace collision problem, and that's significant. Naming the method "next" means that any object with a "next" method cannot be adapted to support the iterator protocol. Unfortunately "next" is a pretty common word and it's quite possible that such a method name is already in use.
So it's worth thinking through.