xrange issue 7721

[Martin v. Loewis]

>> For the record, the issue you were looking at was a complaint that the
>> documentation is incorrect. This had been fixed by correcting the
>> documentation.
>
> I think Mark's point is that the code snippet given isn't a full
> replacement for xrange, since it doesn't support negative step sizes, nor
> does it raise an exception on step=0.

Still, that issue is different from 7721. 7721 was about a 
completely-nonworking example in the documentation. This error has been 
fully
corrected. So this issue *is* fixed, reopining it would be
inappropriate.

There may be another issue with this example, which should be reported 
separately.

> Since the docs are read by people with vastly different levels of
> experience, skill and nous, I think it's a reasonable complaint to make.

That may well be. The proposed approach (reopen the issue) is what I 
consider unreasonable.

Regards,
Martin