There's some inaccuracies when it comes to iterable and iterators (async and not). See https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/thread/3W7TDX5KNVQVGT5CUHBK33M7VNTP25DZ/#3W7TDX5KNVQVGT5CUHBK33M7VNTP25DZ for background.

Should probably check:

1. The glossary.
2. Language reference.
3. Built-ins.

This applies to iter()/__iter__/iterable, next()/__next__/iterator, and their async equivalents.

One thing I would strongly suggest for consistent terminology: Make "iterator" mean an object that has both "__next()__" and "__iter()__". This is consistent with how an iterator has been described in the glossary for a long time, but also consistent with (abc.collections|typing).Iterator.

Either invent a different term for objects having "__next__()" (but not necessarily "__iter__()"), or use a description like "an iterator or any other object that has a __next__() method".

> One thing I would strongly suggest for consistent terminology: Make "iterator" mean an object that has both "__next()__" and "__iter()__".

The point of this issue, though, is to not make that claim as it's inaccurate.

I also need to leave a comment on https://github.com/python/typeshed/issues/6030 if/when this is fixed.

Wouldn't a nicer resolution for this be to change `iter` (which effectively defines what is "iterable"), so that if `iter` does not find the `__iter__` or sequence protocol, it then looks for the iterator protocol (`__next__`), and if it finds that, return the argument?

In that way, all iterators would automatically get the sane implementation of `__iter__` by default, and we could say that in the "runtime", all iterators are iterable, matching the types. And people wouldn't need to implement `__iter__` any more on their iterators i.e. the recommendation could simply be dropped).

> Wouldn't a nicer resolution for this be to change `iter`

Unfortunately that isn't backwards-compatible. Some people may explicitly want their iterators to not be iterables to guarantee that people who want an iterator get a fresh/new one instead of reusing a live iterator.

Okay, fair enough.

New changeset be36e0634060c7d5dee8e8876fb888bbb53d992a by Brett Cannon in branch 'main':
bpo-45250: fix docs regarding `__iter__` and iterators being inconsistently required by CPython (GH-29170)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/be36e0634060c7d5dee8e8876fb888bbb53d992a

New changeset 99aad31b7ad493d4feea04064bcd6b04061477f9 by Brett Cannon in branch '3.10':
[3.10] bpo-45250: fix docs regarding `__iter__` and iterators being inconsistently required by CPython (GH-29170) (GH-29650)
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/99aad31b7ad493d4feea04064bcd6b04061477f9