[Python-3000] optimizing [x]range

[Stargaming]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:25:36 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:

> On 8/2/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
>> > The patch is based on the latest trunk/ checkout, Python 2.6. I don't
>> > think this is a problem if nobody else made any effort towards making
>> > xrange more sequence-like in the Python 3000 branch. The C source
>> > might require some tab/space cleanup.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened: In Py3k, the range object
>> is defined in terms PyObject*, so your patch won't apply to the 3k
>> branch.
> 
> FWIW, making xrange (or range in Py3k) "more sequence-like" is exactly
> what should *not* happen.

No, that's exactly what *should* happen for optimization reasons. 

xrange has never (neither in 2.6 nor 3.0) had an sq_contains slot. 
Growing such a slot is a precondition for implementing 
xrange.__contains__ as an optimized special case, and that makes it more 
sequence-like on the side of the implementation. This does not mean it 
becomes more like the 2.x range, which we're abandoning. 
Sorry for the confusion.