Heiko Wundram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I know this, and that's one of the reasons I'm a little at odds with Python > 3000... some things are so basic (such as > xrange) I wouldn't want to have to implement them every time I need such a > beast.
Itertools.count could be extended to replace xrange. > Unless of course range() becomes "more clever" and returns an iterator in > case the amount of memory to store the needed range is too large... That could break things. Range is supposed to return a list. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
