random.shuffle [1][2] could be faster. 

``xrange(10,1,-1)`` is faster than ``reversed(xrange(1,10))``.

[1] Lib/random.py#l254">http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/v3.Lib/random.py#l254
[2] http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/v2.7.5/Lib/random.py#l276

Added patch to random.shuffle for v2.7.5

Added patch to random.shuffle for trunk

Just did some testing on 2.7 and 3.3 on Windows and Ubuntu, the speedup is  just noticeable - but much less so as the list grows.

Both versions loop over the exact same iterator, so both loops run at the same speed once they are started up.   

Your timeit code isn't measuring shuffle().  Instead, it measures list() which knows how to extract a useful length hint from xrange() but not from an xrange iterator.  The timing difference disappears if you add iter():

   current = '''list(reversed(xrange(1, n)))'''
   proposd = '''list(iter(xrange(n, 1, -1)))'''

If you were to time shuffle() directly, you would see almost no difference between the current version and the patched version (there is a small difference in startup time due to the lookup of the reversed() built-in, but that is it).