> Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes: > > > The bytecode compiler should be clever enough to see that you're > > writing > > > > for i in range(...): ... > > > > and that there's no definition of range other than the built-in one > > (this requires a subtle change of language rules); it can then > > substitute an internal equivalent to xrange(). > > Ouch! What happens to: > > def foo(seq): > for x in seq: > ... > > foo(xrange(small, really_big)) > > if xrange dies?? Good point. I guess xrange() can't die until range() becomes an iterator (which can't be before Python 3.0). Hm, maybe range() shouldn't be an iterator but an interator generator. No time to explain; see the discussion about restartable iterators. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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