I've been looking at code on the tutor mailing list for some time, and

for line in file.readlines(): ...

is a common idiom there. I suppose this is because the readlines() method is easily discoverable while the proper way (iterate over the file object directly) is not.

A note added to the readlines() documentation might help:

"""
You don't need the readlines() method to loop over the lines of a file.
for line in file: process(line)
consumes less memory and is often faster.
"""

This current line is
"Read and return a list of lines from the stream. hint can be specified to control the number of lines read: no more lines will be read if the total size (in bytes/characters) of all lines so far exceeds hint."

I would like to see added
"Since a file is a line iterator, file.readlines() == list(file). To save time and space, iterate over lines of a file with for line in file: process(line)."
(with code markup for the two snippets).

I am skeptical that such a note will help. The iterator behavior is clearly pointed out in the Python Tutorial [1] and in the IOBase documentation [2]. I suspect this bad code pattern is just being copied and pasted from other sources without folks ever even looking at the Python documentation.

[1] http://docs.python.org/dev/tutorial/inputoutput.html?highlight=readlines#methods-of-file-objects
[2] http://docs.python.org/dev/library/io.html#io.IOBase

FWIW I've seen several persons using "for line in file.readlines(): ..." or even "while 1: line = file.readline()". IMHO it's a good idea to document that "without sizehint, it's equivalent to list(file)" and that "for line in file: ..." can be used directly. Even if some people don't read the doc, the ones who do will benefit from this. The same note might also be added to the docstring (I think it's somewhat common to learn about readlines() through dir(file) + help(file.readlines)).

file.readlines() (and perhaps dare I say even file.readline()) should not even be mentioned in the tutorial, IMO. It is difficult to imagine a use case where just iterating over the file object isn't superior. I cannot remember the last time that I have used either of these methods. They ought to be relegated to the library docs. Presenting `for line in a_file:` as merely "An alternative approach" in the official tutorial is practically archaic.

readlines might be discouraged; readline has its use cases (two days ago I used it to get one line to pass to csv.Sniffer.sniff), but next(file) works too, so it could be de-emphasized. There may be a difference with respect to the trailing newline however; I don’t remember if __iter__ or readline keep it or not.

Working on a patch for this.

After reading the comments, I generated a patch that does the following:

• Reorganize to present `for line in f:` as the first approach for reading lines. I refrained from saying it's the *preferred* approach, however I can add that if desired.
• Reorganize to present `f.readlines()` as the alternative approach.

Any feedback is more then welcome! Thanks.

In 3.x I think we'll want to drop the following sentence: "Since the two approaches manage line buffering differently, they should not be mixed". But it can wait for another issue.

I would actually remove the whole section about readlines() or possibly just mention it briefly (something like "If you want to read all the lines of a file in a list you can also use f.readlines().")
The sizehint arg is rarely used, so I don't see the point of going in such details about it in the tutorial. In Lib/, there are only a couple of places where it's actually used:
Lib/fileinput.py:358: self._buffer = self._file.readlines(self._bufsize)
Lib/idlelib/GrepDialog.py:90: block = f.readlines(100000)

I would actually remove the whole section about readlines() or
possibly just mention it briefly (something like "If you want to read
all the lines of a file in a list you can also use f.readlines().")
The sizehint arg is rarely used, so I don't see the point of going in
such details about it in the tutorial.

You are right, Ezio.

I agree with removing .readlines section. If .readlines did not exist, I do not think we would add it now.

Added a new version of the patch to incorporate Ezio's comment!

Patch LGTM. I think it would also be better to say something like "Note that it's already possible to iterate on file objects using for line in file: ... without calling file.readlines()." in Doc/library/io.rst:readlines, as suggested in msg148703.

Agreed Ezio, I've updated the patch to include the change to Doc/library/io.rst:readlines.

New changeset 1e8be05a4039 by Ezio Melotti in branch '3.3':
bpo-13510: clarify that f.readlines() is note necessary to iterate over a file. Patch by Dan Riti.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/1e8be05a4039

New changeset 7f4325dc4256 by Ezio Melotti in branch 'default':
bpo-13510: merge with 3.3.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7f4325dc4256

New changeset 6a4746b0afaf by Ezio Melotti in branch '2.7':
bpo-13510: clarify that f.readlines() is note necessary to iterate over a file. Patch by Dan Riti.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/6a4746b0afaf

Fixed, thanks for the patch!
I also realized I missed Terry suggestion about file.readlines() == list(file), so I added that too.