range() is not the best way to check range?

[Dan Bishop]

Leif K-Brooks wrote:
> Summercoolness at gmail.com wrote:
> > or is there an alternative use of range() or something similar that can
> > be as fast?
>
> You could use xrange:
>
> leif at ubuntu:~$ python -m timeit -n10000 "1 in range(10000)"
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 260 usec per loop
> leif at ubuntu:~$ python -m timeit -n10000 "1 in xrange(10000)"
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 0.664 usec per loop

That's only because you're choosing a number that's early in the list.

~$ python -m timeit -n10000 "1 in xrange(10000)"
10000 loops, best of 3: 1.22 usec per loop
~$ python -m timeit -n10000 "9999 in xrange(10000)"
10000 loops, best of 3: 1.24 msec per loop

That's *milliseconds*, not microseconds.