docs on for-loop with no __iter__?

[Steven Bethard]

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.  =)

Steve