On Aug 11, 2:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Aug 11, 10:55 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > On Aug 10, 10:10 pm, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > jlist wrote: > > > > I think what makes more sense is to compare the code one most > > > > typically writes. In my case, I always use range() and never use psyco. > > > > But I guess for most of my work with Python performance hasn't been > > > > a issue. I haven't got to write any large systems with Python yet, where > > > > performance starts to matter. > > > > Hopefully when you do you will improve your programming practices to not > > > make poor choices - there are few excuses for not using xrange ;) > > > > Kris > > > And can you shed some light on how that relates with one of the zens > > of python ? > > > There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. > > > Dhananjay > > And that is xrange, but if you need a list range is better :P
Interesting to read from PEP-3000 : "Python 2.6 will support forward compatibility in the following two ways: * It will support a "Py3k warnings mode" which will warn dynamically (i.e. at runtime) about features that will stop working in Python 3.0, e.g. assuming that range() returns a list." -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list