xrange issue 7721

[Mark Lawrence]

On 31/05/2010 09:22, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>>> 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

Just forget it, if anyone falls foul of the garbage that has been put 
into the documentation, you can accept responsibility.

Disgusted and offended.

Mark Lawrence.