Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>I'd like to work on this. I've already written a C range() iterator
>>(incorporating PyLongs), and it would be very nice to have it
>>automatically be a lazy range() when used in a loop.
>>
>>In any case, assuming you are quite busy, but would consider this for
>>the 2.4 timeframe, I will do some work on it. If it is already being
>>covered, I'll gladly stay away from it. :)
>
> range() can't be changed from returning a list until at least Python
> 3.0.
Is this change really necessary ? Instead of changing the semantics
of range() why not have the byte code compiler optimize it's typical
usage:
for i in range(10):
pass
In the above case, changing the byte code compiler output would
not introduce any change in semantics. Even better, the compiler
could get rid off the function call altogether.
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com
Professional Python Software directly from the Source (#1, Apr 12 2003)
>>> Python/Zope Products & Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________
EuroPython 2003, Charleroi, Belgium: 73 days left
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