Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
You can implement it yourself.
_all = all
def all(obj):
if isinstance(obj, range):
return 0 not in obj
return _all(obj)
I do not see reasons to do this in the stdlib.
--
nosy: +serhiy.storchaka
resolution: -> not a bug
stage: -> r
Steven D'Aprano added the comment:
> >> Why should ``all()`` special case ``range``? Apart from showing off
> >> benchmarks, what's the point?
>
> Mostly to avoid silly mistakes
What sort of silly mistakes?
> and the overhead of doing it would be very small, so a very small trade-off.
Its
Terji added the comment:
>> If there were special dunders __all__ and __any__ it would be easy to
>> encapsulate this behaviour inside the range objects themselves, and neither
>> any() nor all() would need to know anything about range objects.
This sounds very interesting, and more general.
Terji added the comment:
>> Why should ``all()`` special case ``range``? Apart from showing off
>> benchmarks, what's the point?
Mostly to avoid silly mistakes, and the overhead of doing it would be very
small, so a very small trade-off.
>> Should ``any()`` also special case it?
No, ``any(
Steven D'Aprano added the comment:
Why should ``all()`` special case ``range``? Apart from showing off benchmarks,
what's the point?
Should ``any()`` also special case it? How about other lazy sequences and
computed iterables, such as itertools.count objects, itertools.cycle objects,
iterto
New submission from Terji :
Checking if a range's items are ll truthy can be done y checking if 0 the range
contains 0, however currently Python iterates over the range, making the
operation slower than needed.
>>> rng = range(1, 1_000_000)
>>> timeit all(rng)
19.9 ms ± 599 µs per
