In Python, how do I determine if an object is iterable?

1. Checking for __iter__ works on sequence types, but it would fail on e.g. strings in Python 2. I would like to know the right answer too, until then, here is one possibility (which would work on strings, too):

    try:
        some_object_iterator = iter(some_object)
    except TypeError as te:
        print(some_object, 'is not iterable')
   

The iter built-in checks for the __iter__ method or in the case of strings the __getitem__ method.

2. Another general pythonic approach is to assume an iterable, then fail gracefully if it does not work on the given object. The Python glossary:

Pythonic programming style that determines an object's type by inspection of its method or attribute signature rather than by explicit relationship to some type object ("If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.") By emphasizing interfaces rather than specific types, well-designed code improves its flexibility by allowing polymorphic substitution. Duck-typing avoids tests using type() or isinstance(). Instead, it typically employs the EAFP (Easier to Ask Forgiveness than Permission) style of programming.

...

try:
   _ = (e for e in my_object)
except TypeError:
   print my_object, 'is not iterable'

3. The collections module provides some abstract base classes, which allow to ask classes or instances if they provide particular functionality, for example:

    from collections.abc import Iterable
   
    if isinstance(e, Iterable):
        # e is iterable
   

However, this does not check for classes that are iterable through __getitem__.

Duck typing

try:
    iterator = iter(the_element)
except TypeError:
    # not iterable
else:
    # iterable

# for obj in iterator:
#     pass

Type checking

Use the Abstract Base Classes. They need at least Python 2.6 and work only for new-style classes.

from collections.abc import Iterable   # import directly from collections for Python < 3.3

if isinstance(the_element, Iterable):
    # iterable
else:
    # not iterable

However, iter() is a bit more reliable as described by the documentation:

Checking isinstance(obj, Iterable) detects classes that are registered as Iterable or that have an __iter__() method, but it does not detect classes that iterate with the __getitem__() method. The only reliable way to determine whether an object is iterable is to call iter(obj).

I've been studying this problem quite a bit lately. Based on that my conclusion is that nowadays this is the best approach:

from collections.abc import Iterable   # drop `.abc` with Python 2.7 or lower

def iterable(obj):
    return isinstance(obj, Iterable)

The above has been recommended already earlier, but the general consensus has been that using iter() would be better:

def iterable(obj):
    try:
        iter(obj)
    except Exception:
        return False
    else:
        return True

We've used iter() in our code as well for this purpose, but I've lately started to get more and more annoyed by objects which only have __getitem__ being considered iterable. There are valid reasons to have __getitem__ in a non-iterable object and with them the above code doesn't work well. As a real life example we can use Faker. The above code reports it being iterable but actually trying to iterate it causes an AttributeError (tested with Faker 4.0.2):

>>> from faker import Faker
>>> fake = Faker()
>>> iter(fake)    # No exception, must be iterable
<iterator object at 0x7f1c71db58d0>
>>> list(fake)    # Ooops
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "/home/.../site-packages/faker/proxy.py", line 59, in __getitem__
    return self._factory_map[locale.replace('-', '_')]
AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'replace'

If we'd use insinstance(), we wouldn't accidentally consider Faker instances (or any other objects having only __getitem__) to be iterable:

>>> from collections.abc import Iterable
>>> from faker import Faker
>>> isinstance(Faker(), Iterable)
False

Earlier answers commented that using iter() is safer as the old way to implement iteration in Python was based on __getitem__ and the isinstance() approach wouldn't detect that. This may have been true with old Python versions, but based on my pretty exhaustive testing isinstance() works great nowadays. The only case where isinstance() didn't work but iter() did was with UserDict when using Python 2. If that's relevant, it's possible to use isinstance(item, (Iterable, UserDict)) to get that covered.

This isn't sufficient: the object returned by __iter__ must implement the iteration protocol (i.e. next method). See the relevant section in the documentation.

In Python, a good practice is to "try and see" instead of "checking".

In Python <= 2.5, you can't and shouldn't - iterable was an "informal" interface.

But since Python 2.6 and 3.0 you can leverage the new ABC (abstract base class) infrastructure along with some builtin ABCs which are available in the collections module:

from collections import Iterable

class MyObject(object):
    pass

mo = MyObject()
print isinstance(mo, Iterable)
Iterable.register(MyObject)
print isinstance(mo, Iterable)

print isinstance("abc", Iterable)

Now, whether this is desirable or actually works, is just a matter of conventions. As you can see, you can register a non-iterable object as Iterable - and it will raise an exception at runtime. Hence, isinstance acquires a "new" meaning - it just checks for "declared" type compatibility, which is a good way to go in Python.

On the other hand, if your object does not satisfy the interface you need, what are you going to do? Take the following example:

from collections import Iterable
from traceback import print_exc

def check_and_raise(x):
    if not isinstance(x, Iterable):
        raise TypeError, "%s is not iterable" % x
    else:
        for i in x:
            print i

def just_iter(x):
    for i in x:
        print i


class NotIterable(object):
    pass

if __name__ == "__main__":
    try:
        check_and_raise(5)
    except:
        print_exc()
        print

    try:
        just_iter(5)
    except:
        print_exc()
        print

    try:
        Iterable.register(NotIterable)
        ni = NotIterable()
        check_and_raise(ni)
    except:
        print_exc()
        print

If the object doesn't satisfy what you expect, you just throw a TypeError, but if the proper ABC has been registered, your check is unuseful. On the contrary, if the __iter__ method is available Python will automatically recognize object of that class as being Iterable.

So, if you just expect an iterable, iterate over it and forget it. On the other hand, if you need to do different things depending on input type, you might find the ABC infrastructure pretty useful.

try:
  #treat object as iterable
except TypeError, e:
  #object is not actually iterable

Don't run checks to see if your duck really is a duck to see if it is iterable or not, treat it as if it was and complain if it wasn't.

You could try this:

def iterable(a):
    try:
        (x for x in a)
        return True
    except TypeError:
        return False

If we can make a generator that iterates over it (but never use the generator so it doesn't take up space), it's iterable. Seems like a "duh" kind of thing. Why do you need to determine if a variable is iterable in the first place?

I found a nice solution here:

isiterable = lambda obj: isinstance(obj, basestring) \
    or getattr(obj, '__iter__', False)

It's always eluded me as to why python has callable(obj) -> bool but not iterable(obj) -> bool...
surely it's easier to do hasattr(obj,'__call__') even if it is slower.

Since just about every other answer recommends using try/except TypeError, where testing for exceptions is generally considered bad practice among any language, here's an implementation of iterable(obj) -> bool I've grown more fond of and use often:

For python 2's sake, I'll use a lambda just for that extra performance boost...
(in python 3 it doesn't matter what you use for defining the function, def has roughly the same speed as lambda)

iterable = lambda obj: hasattr(obj,'__iter__') or hasattr(obj,'__getitem__')

Note that this function executes faster for objects with __iter__ since it doesn't test for __getitem__.

Most iterable objects should rely on __iter__ where special-case objects fall back to __getitem__, though either is required for an object to be iterable.
(and since this is standard, it affects C objects as well)

There are a lot of ways to check if an object is iterable:

from collections.abc import Iterable
myobject = 'Roster'
  
if isinstance(myobject , Iterable):
    print(f"{myobject } is iterable") 
else:
   print(f"strong text{myobject } is not iterable")

Instead of checking for the __iter__ attribute, you could check for the __len__ attribute, which is implemented by every python builtin iterable, including strings.

>>> hasattr(1, "__len__")
False
>>> hasattr(1.3, "__len__")
False
>>> hasattr("a", "__len__")
True
>>> hasattr([1,2,3], "__len__")
True
>>> hasattr({1,2}, "__len__")
True
>>> hasattr({"a":1}, "__len__")
True
>>> hasattr(("a", 1), "__len__")
True

None-iterable objects would not implement this for obvious reasons. However, it does not catch user-defined iterables that do not implement it, nor do generator expressions, which iter can deal with. However, this can be done in a line, and adding a simple or expression checking for generators would fix this problem. (Note that writing type(my_generator_expression) == generator would throw a NameError. Refer to this answer instead.)

You can use GeneratorType from types:

>>> import types
>>> types.GeneratorType
<class 'generator'>
>>> gen = (i for i in range(10))
>>> isinstance(gen, types.GeneratorType)
True

--- accepted answer by utdemir

(This makes it useful for checking if you can call len on the object though.)

Not really "correct" but can serve as quick check of most common types like strings, tuples, floats, etc...

>>> '__iter__' in dir('sds')
True
>>> '__iter__' in dir(56)
False
>>> '__iter__' in dir([5,6,9,8])
True
>>> '__iter__' in dir({'jh':'ff'})
True
>>> '__iter__' in dir({'jh'})
True
>>> '__iter__' in dir(56.9865)
False

Kinda late to the party but I asked myself this question and saw this then thought of an answer. I don't know if someone already posted this. But essentially, I've noticed that all iterable types have __getitem__() in their dict. This is how you would check if an object was an iterable without even trying. (Pun intended)

def is_attr(arg):
    return '__getitem__' in dir(arg)

In my code I used to check for non iterable objects:

hasattr(myobject,'__trunc__')

This is quite quick and can be used to check for iterables too (use not).

I'm not 100% sure if this solution works for all objects, maybe other can give a some more background on it. __trunc__ method seams to be related to numerical types (all objects that can be rounded to integers needs it). But I didn't found any object that contains __trunc__ together with __iter__ or __getitem__.