More fun with PEP 276

[Michael Chermside]

Jim wrote:

> p.s. And Note that PEP 276 itself (merely) suggests
> adding an iterator to class int which could exist
> independently from any or none of the above.  (I know,
> we've been around that circle before, too. <wink>).


Yeah. Is there a way to express my support for the limited and 
well-reasoned proposal that is in PEP 276 itself without commiting 
myself at all on the broad flurry of OTHER proposals folks have made here?

-- Michael Chermside