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
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
