Progressing an iterator is a side-effect (a mutation).
Depending how the last iteration is handled, zip(a, b) and zip(b, a) with iterators of different sizes can have different behaviours: if a is shorter than b, a naïve implementation would update b in the zip(b, a) case, but not in the zip(a, b) case.
That reminds me of a lovely paper "How to Add Laziness to a Strict Language Without Even Being Odd" by Wadler and MacQuenn. They use "map" as their running example, but the problem is basically the same.
zip is generally implemented as a functional concept, where the iterators take values from the backing iterable structure "by const &". You can implement a custom mutating zip operation on top of the iterator protocol.
I believe masklinn is talking about whether `zip` consumes an extra element from the longer iterator on the last iteration, when the shorter iterator raises StopIteration. And the behavior might vary depending on the order of the arguments.
Depending how the last iteration is handled, zip(a, b) and zip(b, a) with iterators of different sizes can have different behaviours: if a is shorter than b, a naïve implementation would update b in the zip(b, a) case, but not in the zip(a, b) case.