On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Chris Barker <chris.barker@noaa.gov> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> wrote:
As I indicated in an earlier response, there is some performance value
to replacing the range function call with this (or other) syntactic
sugar.

It's my impression that adding stuff like this primarily for performance is nothing on the list ;-)

I wasn't arguing for its inclusion, just explaining that there is potentially more than a few characters of typing to be saved. (Someone asked if that was the only benefit of the proposal.)

FWIW, at least some compilers (Shed Skin, I believe, perhaps Cython and/or Pyrex as well) already treat range() as a builtin constant.

Skip