On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:36 PM, mabshoff wrote: > On Sep 24, 2:10 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:02 PM, mabshoff wrote: >> >>> but I thought that the new >>> coercion model allows us to fix the above problem when coercion mv >>> polynomial rings with loads (thousands!) of indeterminates. IIRC the >>> problem is that when doing the coercion we end up creating a couple >>> thousand mv polynomial rings until we finally get to the one we want >>> and need. The fix discussed at SD6 was to first check some special >>> cases, but I am sure malb has a much better recollection of the >>> issue >>> and the suggested fix here. >> >> Yes, there is the potential for massive (completely orthogonal) >> speedups there, it's just a matter of porting the polynomial changes >> over from the coercion branch back into Sage itself. > > Nice. I have been pushing hard to get all your coercion patches into > Sage so that your and David Roe's work (and all the other contributors > to the coercion rewrite obviously) finally pays off. #4111 will be > merged in the next hour, so 3.1.3 should finally use the new > infrastructure in a bunch of places. I am currently valgrinding > 3.1.3.a1 and so far I have not seen any funny business related to new > coercion, so I am hopeful that the transition will be smooth. > > If you post the polynomial changes from new coercion I am sure someone > will be more than motivated to review this.
I'll try and keep them coming. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
