[Python-Dev] Re: More int/long integration issues
Guido van Rossum
Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:03:27 -0500
> Guido writes:
> > 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
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/~guido/)