PEP 234 little bug?

[Just van Rossum]

In article <3C817FC1.A155DBAB at earthlink.net>,
 Hans Nowak <wurmy at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> > 
> > Just read through some of the already implemented PEPs.
> > 
> > PEP 234 (iterators) states:
> > 
> > >    - It has been proposed that a file object should be its own
> > >      iterator, with a next() method returning the next line.  This
> > >      has certain advantages, and makes it even clearer that this
> > >      iterator is destructive.  The disadvantage is that this would
> > >      make it even more painful to implement the "sticky
> > >      StopIteration" feature proposed in the previous bullet.
> > >
> > >      Resolution: this has been implemented.
> > 
> > I can't see a next() in a file object. Shouldn't it be
> > "Resolution: this has not been implemented." ?
> 
> Hm, I don't think so. I think it does not say that the *file*
> object should have a next() method... rather, it says that
> it's its own iterator, and the iterator has the next()
> method. Maybe the wording could have been a bit more careful,
> but essentially it's true what is says. And iterating over
> files has indeed been implemented in 2.2.

Just yesterday I've filed a bug about the current behavior that is 
caused by the fact that the file object is *not* its own iterator:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=524804&group_id=5470&atid
=105470

Just