Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> added the comment: 2010/6/3 Tal Einat <rep...@bugs.python.org>: > > Tal Einat <talei...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment: > > In my mind, the reason for this patch is that xrange/range can be thought of > as a lazy list of integers. However without this patch, membership checking > was done trivially instead of in a "smart/lazy" manner, which is unexpected > for users. Finally, conditions such as "num in xrange(3, 1000, 5)" are not > trivial to express correctly otherwise, and even more so for negative steps. > > This patch is already implemented and accepted for 3.2, I just wish to > back-port it to 2.7 which should be fairly straightforward. > > I'll just have a patch ready by tomorrow, and hope that someone finds the > time to review it and possibly commit it in time for rc1. I realize that this > is a minor change at the last minute. I will certainly understand if the > people responsible for preparing rc1 are too busy for this.
xrange has behaved like this for such a long time that I don't see what it buys us to commit the patch this late. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1766304> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
