In section 8.3 The for statement there is a reference to range as a built-in function. That was true in python 2. Now range is a built-in type.

I presume you are referring to 8.3 of the language reference
https://docs.python.org/3/reference/compound_stmts.html#the-for-statement
which has "the built-in function range()".  Types/classes *are* functions, which is why dist, list, range, etc are listed in "Built-in Functions" in the library reference.  But I agree that the more specific term should be used.

To me, the more severe problem is with the complete sentence.

"Hint: the built-in function range() returns an iterator of integers suitable to emulate the effect of Pascal’s for i := a to b do; e.g., list(range(3)) returns the list [0, 1, 2]."

The now obsolete definition of Python in terms of the now obscure Pascal should be deleted here and anywhere else such remains.  I think the whole sentence should just be deleted.  The whole paragraph and example could otherwise be improved.

Thanks for explaining. Indeed range appears in __builtins__. It is a surprise to type range and get <class 'range'> in response. sum otoh gives <built-in function sum>. The distinction between function, type and class seems muddy.

When I enter "range" in the index box in the windows documentation display I am offered: 

(1)built-in function, which takes me to the paragraph that started this issue. It does NOT take me to the built-in functions topic, whereas sum does.

(2) object, and range (built-in class)which take me to the built-in types topic. This seems to add to the confusion.

Then it appears the indexing could also be improved.

Terry, how do you think the example/paragraph should be improved? I notice that the previous paragraphs talk about continue/break/else, so were you looking for some new example with all those? And I think the indexing's been fixed by now, but a clickable link to the range() documentation (https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#range) might still be a good idea just for convenience.