On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > .. > > There are good reasons for having range() return an Iterable and not > > an Iterator; e.g. > > > > R = range(N) > > for i in R: > > for j in R: > > .... > > You realize that in the snippet above whatever cycles you save by > creating R once, you give away by creating iter(R) twice. So compared > to range() returning an iterator and having to write > > for i in range(N): > for j in range(N): > ... > > you have 3 vs. 2 auxiliary objects created. And how often do you see > code that will not benefit from being generalized from square to > rectangular matrices? > > Lots of C code will go away if we nix the range object and leave only > rangeiterator!
That's completely besides the point. The point of the example is that the *Python* code doesn't have to write range(N) twice. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
