On 2015-05-02, BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 02/05/2015 22:40, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> I think the issue is that nobody else here thinks the "original way" >> of iterating was to use range(), for anything other than extremely >> small ranges. > > What /is/ the way to iterate then?
Other people have already explained that to you several times. If you want a literal 'for (i = 0; i < x; i++)' loop then it's 'for i in xrange(x)' (from Python 1.0 to Python 2.7), but most of the time you simply wouldn't be writing code that works that way. > I don't have much Python code lying around, but the first couple of > files I looked at (not mine), one had this: > > for i in range(7,-1,-1): > for j in range(8): > > another had: > > for l in range(1,17): > for i in range(1, self.bits[l] + 1): > > for i in range(256): > > and so on. Plenty of examples. ... of extremely small ranges, just as I said. > I don't think the small size of the range is a mitigating factor, other > than it won't run out of memory. Even a small loop can be executed > millions of times. So what? The overhead of creating a list of 17 integers is trivial compared to executing the rest of the code. As the man said: "premature optimization is the root of all evil". -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
