On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:16:37 -0400, AndyL 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?
For historical reasons. Don't worry, in Python3000, range() will be an iterator, and xrange() will disappear. Until then, I use range() for small loops (by small I mean anything up to a few tens of thousands), and xrange() only when I absolutely have to optimize my code to save a piddling few tens of kilobytes of memory. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
