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

[Grant Edwards]

On 2006-07-18, Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> John Machin wrote:
>>
>> range() and xrange() are functions. You are suggesting that 2
>> *functions* should acquire a __contains__ method each? I trust
>> not.
>
> Well, range is a function in the current implementation,
> although its usage is similar to that one would get if it were
> a class, particularly a subclass of list or one providing a
> list-style interface. With such a class, you could provide a
> __contains__ method which could answer the question of what
> the range contains based on the semantics guaranteed by a
> range (in contrast to a normal list).
>
>> Perhaps you meant that the acquisitors should be the objects
>> that those functions return.
>
> The whole point was to avoid expanding the range into a list.

It's unclear what you're referring to as "the range".

Perhaps you're thinking of a slice?  Somethign like

  if  (0:10000).contains(x):

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Make me look like
                                  at               LINDA RONSTADT again!!
                               visi.com