from functools import reduce
def add(a,b): return a+b
reduce(add, {})
>>>
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Programs\Python34\tem.py", line 3, in <module>
    reduce(add, {})
TypeError: reduce() of empty sequence with no initial value

However, the reduce-equivalent code in the doc sets a bad example and forgets to account for empty iterators.

def reduce(function, iterable, initializer=None):
    it = iter(iterable)
    if initializer is None:
        value = next(it)
    else: ...

So it lets the StopIteration escape (a bad practice that can silently break iterators).  The code should be

def reduce(function, iterable, initializer=None):
    it = iter(iterable)
    if initializer is None:
        try:
            value = next(it)
        except StopIteration:
            raise TypeError("reduce() of empty sequence with no initial value") from None
    else: ...

(patch coming)

I think it would be good to add Python implementation in functools.py and test they equivalence in tests.

Background: the OP of #19202 proposed equivalent code for all the functool functions, including two versions for reduce. Georg combined the two versions into the one that Raymond pushed.  Both agreed that reduce was the only function that really needed this.  I called Georg's code  'excellent'.

I have changed my mind slightly because people use such code equivalents not only for understanding but also as models for writing code, and because some people have had problems when by doing the same as this model, which ignores the empty iterable case.

If you do not want to 'uglify' the doc code by making it exactly equivalent, how about qualifying the claim instead?  Change 'equivalent' to 'equivalent for non-empty iterables'.

Elsewhere I have used "rough equivalent".

FWIW, the initializer defaulting to "None" is also an approximation.   It would be more technically correct to have "initializer = sentinel" where "sentinel = object()".   But of course this too would obfuscate the documentation which mainly aimed to clarify two sticky points:  1) the order of arguments to the function call (accm, x) vs (x, accm) and 2) that if an initializer isn't specified, the first value from the iterable is used.  These are the two issues that Guido found difficult to remember and caused reduce() to be banished from builtins.

I agree with Raymond. Examples in the code are not meant to be a reference but, well, examples. That is, the educational value should come first and strict adherence to the language spec only second.

"Roughly equivalent" is already used in the functools doc, it can probably be reused :-)

New changeset 0b3d69f15950 by Raymond Hettinger in branch '3.4':
Issue #23049:  Pure python equivalent shouldn't imply more exactitude than is really there.
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0b3d69f15950