docs on for-loop with no __iter__?

[Terry Reedy]

"Steven Bethard" <steven.bethard at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:loom.20040907T091810-178 at post.gmane.org...
> 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 
clear.

tjr