[Python-Dev] Re: More int/long integration issues
Guido van Rossum
guido@python.org
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:33:35 -0500
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:33:35 -0500
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: More int/long integration issues
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: More int/long integration issues
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes: > > > The bytecode compiler should be clever enough to see that you're > > writing > > > > for i in range(...): ... > > > > and that there's no definition of range other than the built-in one > > (this requires a subtle change of language rules); it can then > > substitute an internal equivalent to xrange(). > > Ouch! What happens to: > > def foo(seq): > for x in seq: > ... > > foo(xrange(small, really_big)) > > if xrange dies?? Good point. I guess xrange() can't die until range() becomes an iterator (which can't be before Python 3.0). Hm, maybe range() shouldn't be an iterator but an interator generator. No time to explain; see the discussion about restartable iterators. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Re: More int/long integration issues
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: More int/long integration issues
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]