Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes: > Is it really so bad if this allocates *two* objects instead of one? When accepting the patch, I assumed that the observed speed difference between xrange and range originated from the fact that xrange iteration allocates iterator objects. I'm not so sure anymore that this is the real cause, more likely, it is again the exception handling when exhausting the range. > I think that's the only to get my example to work correctly. And it > *has* to work correctly. > > If two objects are created anyway, I agree with Oren that it's better > to have a separate range-iterator object type. I agree. I wouldn't mind if somebody would review Raymond's to introduce such a thing. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4