docs on for-loop with no __iter__?
steven.bethard at gmail.com
Tue Sep 7 09:21:47 CEST 2004
Alex Martelli <aleaxit <at> yahoo.com> writes:
> At this point, I suspect you didn't mean that "always" in the way I read
> it, but I don't think my reading of it was unreasonable. Starting from
> the default assumption that miscommunications are most often due to both
> speaker and listener, I'm quite willing to take my half share of
> responsibility for this one if you're willing to take yours, and we can
> call it quits.
Ahh, yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't even realize that reading of "always" was
possible. When I wrote "Same reasons Python always breaks old code" I
intended the reading "For the only reasons that Python ever breaks old code",
but I can see the other reading now... Yup, I'll take my half. =)
More information about the Python-list