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

[tac-tics]

Simon Forman wrote:
> To me, and perhaps others, "T =
> set(xrange(0, 10000, 23))" and "n in T"  are somewhat easier to read
> and write than "not n % 23 and 0 <= n < 10000", YMMV.

Eh? How is the first easier to read than the second?? You have a nested
function call in the first!

Regardless, testing if a member is part of a ranged set is always going
to be slower. It's the nature of what you're doing. Building a set and
then searching it takes much longer than a single modulus and
subtraction (which is all an integer comparison is).