AndyL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Paul Rubin wrote: >> Normally you'd use range or xrange. range builds a complete list in >> memory so can be expensive if the number is large. xrange just counts >> up to that number. >so when range would be used instead of xrange. if xrange is more >efficient, why range was not reimplemented?
If you actually want the list for some reason: $ python2.4 -mtimeit 'list(xrange(100))' 100000 loops, best of 3: 4.54 usec per loop $ python2.4 -mtimeit 'range(100)' 100000 loops, best of 3: 2.61 usec per loop -- \S -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/ ___ | "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other" \X/ | -- Arthur C. Clarke her nu becomeþ se bera eadward ofdun hlæddre heafdes bæce bump bump bump
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
