Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Nicko wrote: > > > ... In the case of the idiom "for i in > > range(x):..." there absolutely no utility whatsoever in creating and > > recording the list of objects. > > for short lists, both objects create the *same* number of objects.
This is true for long lists too, if you iterate over the full range, but what I wrote was "creating and recording". The range() function generates a variable-sized, potentially large object and retains all of the items in the range while xrange() generates a fairly small, fixed sized object and only hangs on to one item at a time. Furthermore, it's not at all uncommon for loops to be terminated early. With range() you incur the cost of creating all the objects, and a list large enough to hold them, irrespective of if you are going to use them. > if you cannot refrain from pulling arguments out of your ass, you not > really the right person to talk about hygiene. I'm impressed but your mature argument. Clearly, in the face of such compelling reasoning, I shall have to concede that we should all generate our range lists up front. Nicko -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
