PEP 260: simplify xrange()

[James Logajan]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Here's another sweet and short PEP.  What do folks think?  Is
> xrange()'s complexity really worth having?

Are there still known bugs that will take some effort to repair? Is xrange
constantly touched when changes are made elsewhere? If no to both, then I
suggest don't fix what ain't broken; life is too short. (Unless it is
annoying you to distraction, then do the deed and get it over with.)