IMO, xrange() must die.
As a compromise to practicality, it should lose functionality, not gain any.
Glad to hear it. I always found range() vs xrange() a wart.
It is, and it is one that I hate.
But if you had it do do over, how would you do it?
I'd make range() an iterator. To get a concrete list that you can modify, you'd have to write list(range(N)). But that can't be done without breaking backwards compatibility, so I won't.
OK, range() becomes lazy, then? Or is there another plan?
The bytecode compiler should be clever enough to see that you're writing
for i in range(...): ...
and that there's no definition of range other than the built-in one (this requires a subtle change of language rules); it can then substitute an internal equivalent to xrange().
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/%7Eguido/)