Nicko wrote: > 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. > I'm impressed that you think any of this will be news to the effbot, whose sagacity is exceeded only by his irritability in the face of ignorance.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
