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 loop

If the all function could special case range, this could be like made fast like this:

    if isinstance(obj, range):
        if 0 in obj:
            return False
        return True

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, itertools.repeat objects, etc? How many special cases do we want?

Personally, I don't *necessarily* oppose special-casing types, but it breaks the independence of types, and couples the all() function and the range() function. To be worth doing, we should get some practical benefit out of it. It isn't clear what that benefit is.

Don't get me wrong, its not like I *want* all(range(1, 10**10)) to be slow. But nor do I want to couple the all() function to the range function and complicate the implementation if there is no corresponding benefit. After all, testing with all() is fundamentally an O(N) worst case operation so anything better than that is a nice surprise.

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.

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()takes at most two iterations to check truthiness in a range(), so that's wouldn't be needed.

> How about other lazy sequences and computed iterables, such as itertools.count objects, itertools.cycle objects, itertools.repeat objects, etc? How many special cases do we want?

No, I wouldn't propose that. The argument would be that those are iterators/generators while range() is special-cased built-in sequence with known properties.

> 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. It would be useful for e.g. numpy arrays, where all(arr) currently is slower than arr.all(). Don't know it there's a reason it wasn't implemented this way originally?

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 not just the overhead, its the coupling between two chunks of code
which should be independent.

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.