Hmm. Trying to answer myself: I guess my suggested solution would miss functions that don't specify the type, but just rely on the iterable behaviour.
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:53:03 AM UTC+1, DNF wrote: > > I may be missing something, but what about using the TypeTrees module to > obtain the typenames, and then using methodswith() to establish whether > each type has the methods start, next and stop? It would be a bit slow, of > course, but if you dig around in the source code of methodswith you could > probably find some quicker way of specifically testing types for individual > methods. >
