On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:35:24 +1000, "Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy)" wrote:

"iterable" *is* <some type spec>. If something is "iterable" it has a well-defined interface - specifically:
I get what you mean, but let me point out that "iterable" does not appear
in the index of either the Language Reference or Library Reference, nor do
I see it in the introduction. Actually, the introduction would really
benefit from a description of all the conventions used in the manual. As
it stands, one has to come across this usage several times to realize it's
a convention (and that's not the way many people use reference manuals).

What would be really cool, and probably easy, is to just make sure that
every occurrence of "iterable" is a link to a page that describes that
well-defined interface.

This is still beyond the scope of the question about the Set documentation.
I appreciate the responses, but I'm not sure whether this is the right time
to continue this sort of discussion.


Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions



site design / logo © 2023 Grokbase