On Nov 14, 11:30 pm, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 15, 4:39 pm, Dmitry Groshev <lambdadmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > if x in range(a, b): #wrong! > > Only in Python 3.x, it's perfectly valid in Python 2.x. To achieve the > same in Python 3.x, try: > > if x in list(range(a, b,)): # BUT SEE MY COMMENT BELOW > > > it feels so natural to check it that way, but we have to write > > if a <= x <= b > > I understand that it's not a big deal, but it would be awesome to have > > some optimisations - it's clearly possible to detect things like that > > "wrong" one and fix it in a bytecode. > > This seems more like a pessimisation to me: your range version > constructs a list just to do a single container check. That's a _lot_ > more cumbersome than two simple comparisons chained together.
Also: testing for the membership of x in a set is NOT the same thing as testing using inequality operators. The inequality operators will return True for any FLOATING-POINT value within the range (a...b), but the set test will only return True for set members. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
