Roman Suzi wrote:
I think that if any object (from standard library at least) doesn't support
iteration, it should clearly state so.
My guess is that 'for' causes the use of 'm[0]', which is (rightfully) an error...
Can this behaviour of email be considered a bug? Is there a good case to iterate over something useful in a message
Why would it be a bug if the documentation never stated that the object was iterable?
I think the bug is not that an error is produced, but that the _wrong_ error is produced. Trying to iterate over something that is not iterable should produce a TypeError saying so (not an Attribute error):
py> class C(object): ... pass ... py> iter(C()) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<interactive input>", line 1, in ? TypeError: iteration over non-sequence
I've actually seen something like this come up before (I think with email.Message even...) I say call it a bug and submit a patch. It's pretty easy to fix -- just add an __iter__ method to Message that raises a TypeError. That makes it clear that Message doesn't intend to support the getitem protocol -- it just does so accidentally because it provides __getitem__.
STeVe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
