docs on for-loop with no __iter__?

Terry Reedy tjreedy at
Wed Sep 8 06:23:31 CEST 2004

"Steven Bethard" <steven.bethard at> wrote in message 
news:loom.20040907T091810-178 at
> 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.  =)

I believe I also misread the same way Alex did, but other meaning now 


More information about the Python-list mailing list