In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Alan Morgan wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Steve R. Hastings wrote: >>> >>>>> in Python 2.X, range is defined to return a list. if you start >>>>> returning something else, you'll break stuff. >>>> >>>> Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but I don't see how this optimization could >>>> possibly break anything. >>> >>>Because you assume that the only use-case of range() is within a for-loop. >>>range() is a builtin function that can be used in any Python expression. For >>>instance: >>> >>>RED, GREEN, BLUE, WHITE, BLACK = range(5) >> >> Hmmm, this worked fine when I used xrange as well. Am I missing something? >> Obviously there *are* differences, viz: > >Just _look_ at the objects: > >>>> range(5) >[0, 1, 2, 3, 4] >>>> xrange(5) >xrange(5) >>>>
Yes, I was well aware of this. I noted a difference in my original post. I was just pointing out that the example given didn't, in fact, behave differently for range() and xrange() even though range() and xrange() *are* different. >range is giving you a real list, while xrange is giving you an xrange object. >Have you tried to slice an xrange object? Or using .append on it? No, I hadn't. I presume these could all be defined. Alan -- Defendit numerus -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
