`iter()` doesn't require a "collection"
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 77.2k
- Forks
- 35.9k
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
Documentation
The documentation for iter() says, for the one-argument form:
iter(iterable, /)Return an iterator object. [...] the single argument must be a collection object which supports the iterable protocol (the
__iter__()method), or it must support the sequence protocol (the__getitem__()method with integer arguments starting at 0). If it does not support either of those protocols, TypeError is raised.
This terminology is misleading, since a "collection" also needs to support size and containment checking. Per set and Collections Abstract Base Classes, respectively:
Like other collections, sets support
x in set,len(set), andfor x in set.
Collection : Sized, Iterable, Container :
__contains__,__iter__,__len__
It should be possible to reword this section to avoid the term "collection", either by simply removing it or rephrasing the whole sentence.
Linked PRs
- gh-155857
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the one-argument form of iter() in the built-in functions documentation. Review the wording around the iterable and sequence protocols, then confirm that the term “collection” is removed or rephrased so it does not imply size and containment support.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 1/5
- Estimated time
- Under an hour
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100