Update comments about the performance of xrange().
diff --git a/Doc/lib/libstdtypes.tex b/Doc/lib/libstdtypes.tex
index 4372ec1..a104d85 100644
--- a/Doc/lib/libstdtypes.tex
+++ b/Doc/lib/libstdtypes.tex
@@ -884,8 +884,8 @@
size of the range it represents. There are no consistent performance
advantages.
-XRange objects have very little behavior: they only support indexing
-and the \function{len()} function.
+XRange objects have very little behavior: they only support indexing,
+iteration, and the \function{len()} function.
\subsubsection{Mutable Sequence Types \label{typesseq-mutable}}
diff --git a/Objects/rangeobject.c b/Objects/rangeobject.c
index 9d0d9cd..9c7b74e 100644
--- a/Objects/rangeobject.c
+++ b/Objects/rangeobject.c
@@ -113,8 +113,8 @@
"xrange([start,] stop[, step]) -> xrange object\n\
\n\
Like range(), but instead of returning a list, returns an object that\n\
-generates the numbers in the range on demand. This is slightly slower\n\
-than range() but more memory efficient.");
+generates the numbers in the range on demand. For looping, this is \n\
+slightly faster than range() and more memory efficient.");
static PyObject *
range_item(rangeobject *r, int i)