[issue678464] Docs don't define sequence-ness very well

Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I think the glossary now has some good definitions of iterable and sequence, so we can close this. (after 5 years!) -- nosy: +benjamin.peterson resolution: -> out of date status: open -> closed ___

[issue678464] Docs don't define sequence-ness very well

Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: (Sorry for the delay responding. Gmail thought Facundo's response was spam. :-/) In defense of my bug report, note that I submitted it in January 2003! It's quite possible that the docs have improved in this regard since then. If you think

[issue678464] Docs don't define sequence-ness very well

Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: What is the bug actually? "for k in s" is defined to work on any iterable, not only on sequences. And "iterable" is clearly defined, it's sufficient to check whether s.__iter__ exists or whether iter(s) succeeds... -- nosy: +pitrou _

[issue678464] Docs don't define sequence-ness very well

Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Skip, don't you think it's better to raise this kind of generic question in the python-dev list? This should probably lay down here for ever before a discussion raises to decide this. -- nosy: +facundobatista __

[issue678464] Docs don't define sequence-ness very well

Changes by Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -- type: -> feature request Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Python-bugs-list mail