You should favour range() over xrange() only when you need an actual list. For instance, when you want to modify the list returned by range(), or when you wish to slice it. For iteration or even just normal indexing, xrange() will work fine (and usually much more efficiently). There is a point where range() is a bit faster than xrange() for very small lists, but depending on your hardware and various other details, the break-even can be at a result of length 1 or 2; not something to worry about. Prefer xrange().

我只是想说，获得一个具有切片和索引功能的xrange对象真的不是那么困难。我写了一些代码，工作得很好，就像xrange一样快，当它计数(迭代)。

from __future__ import division

def read_xrange(xrange_object):
    # returns the xrange object's start, stop, and step
    start = xrange_object[0]
    if len(xrange_object) > 1:
       step = xrange_object[1] - xrange_object[0]
    else:
        step = 1
    stop = xrange_object[-1] + step
    return start, stop, step

class Xrange(object):
    ''' creates an xrange-like object that supports slicing and indexing.
    ex: a = Xrange(20)
    a.index(10)
    will work

    Also a[:5]
    will return another Xrange object with the specified attributes

    Also allows for the conversion from an existing xrange object
    '''
    def __init__(self, *inputs):
        # allow inputs of xrange objects
        if len(inputs) == 1:
            test, = inputs
            if type(test) == xrange:
                self.xrange = test
                self.start, self.stop, self.step = read_xrange(test)
                return

        # or create one from start, stop, step
        self.start, self.step = 0, None
        if len(inputs) == 1:
            self.stop, = inputs
        elif len(inputs) == 2:
            self.start, self.stop = inputs
        elif len(inputs) == 3:
            self.start, self.stop, self.step = inputs
        else:
            raise ValueError(inputs)

        self.xrange = xrange(self.start, self.stop, self.step)

    def __iter__(self):
        return iter(self.xrange)

    def __getitem__(self, item):
        if type(item) is int:
            if item < 0:
                item += len(self)

            return self.xrange[item]

        if type(item) is slice:
            # get the indexes, and then convert to the number
            start, stop, step = item.start, item.stop, item.step
            start = start if start != None else 0 # convert start = None to start = 0
            if start < 0:
                start += start
            start = self[start]
            if start < 0: raise IndexError(item)
            step = (self.step if self.step != None else 1) * (step if step != None else 1)
            stop = stop if stop is not None else self.xrange[-1]
            if stop < 0:
                stop += stop

            stop = self[stop]
            stop = stop

            if stop > self.stop:
                raise IndexError
            if start < self.start:
                raise IndexError
            return Xrange(start, stop, step)

    def index(self, value):
        error = ValueError('object.index({0}): {0} not in object'.format(value))
        index = (value - self.start)/self.step
        if index % 1 != 0:
            raise error
        index = int(index)


        try:
            self.xrange[index]
        except (IndexError, TypeError):
            raise error
        return index

    def __len__(self):
        return len(self.xrange)

老实说，我认为整个问题有点傻，xrange应该做所有这些…

Xrange()更有效，因为它每次只生成一个对象，而不是生成一个对象列表。而不是100个整数，以及它们所有的开销，以及将它们放入的列表，你每次只需要一个整数。更快的生成，更好的内存使用，更高效的代码。

除非我特别需要一个列表，否则我总是喜欢xrange()

对于性能而言，尤其是在大范围内迭代时，xrange()通常更好。然而，仍然有一些情况下你可能更喜欢range():

In python 3, range() does what xrange() used to do and xrange() does not exist. If you want to write code that will run on both Python 2 and Python 3, you can't use xrange(). range() can actually be faster in some cases - eg. if iterating over the same sequence multiple times. xrange() has to reconstruct the integer object every time, but range() will have real integer objects. (It will always perform worse in terms of memory however) xrange() isn't usable in all cases where a real list is needed. For instance, it doesn't support slices, or any list methods.

[编辑]有几篇文章提到了如何通过2to3工具升级range()。为了记录，下面是在range()和xrange()的一些示例用法上运行该工具的输出。

RefactoringTool: Skipping implicit fixer: buffer
RefactoringTool: Skipping implicit fixer: idioms
RefactoringTool: Skipping implicit fixer: ws_comma
--- range_test.py (original)
+++ range_test.py (refactored)
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@

 for x in range(20):
-    a=range(20)
+    a=list(range(20))
     b=list(range(20))
     c=[x for x in range(20)]
     d=(x for x in range(20))
-    e=xrange(20)
+    e=range(20)

如您所见，当在for循环或推导式中使用时，或者已经使用list()包装时，range保持不变。

You should favour range() over xrange() only when you need an actual list. For instance, when you want to modify the list returned by range(), or when you wish to slice it. For iteration or even just normal indexing, xrange() will work fine (and usually much more efficiently). There is a point where range() is a bit faster than xrange() for very small lists, but depending on your hardware and various other details, the break-even can be at a result of length 1 or 2; not something to worry about. Prefer xrange().

不，它们都有自己的用途:

迭代时使用xrange()，因为它节省内存。说:

for x in xrange(1, one_zillion):

而不是:

for x in range(1, one_zillion):

另一方面，如果实际需要一个数字列表，则使用range()。

multiples_of_seven = range(7,100,7)
print "Multiples of seven < 100: ", multiples_of_seven