Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> On Jul 9, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: >> >>> See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5081 . >>> >>> sage: numpy.array([1, 10, 100]).dtype >>> dtype('int64') >> >> Following up on this, I've also posted http://trac.sagemath.org/ >> sage_trac/ticket/6506 . This brings up an interface question, and I >> thought I'd bring it up here. With the latest patch, we have the >> following behavior: >> >> Integer -> long (if it fits), then int64 (if it fits) and object >> otherwise >> Real/Complex -> float64 (if it's less than 57 bits, which is the >> cuttoff for RealNumber(repr(float(x))), and object for greater prec >> Rational -> same as Integer for integral, float64 otherwise >> >> I figured this is mostly for numerical use (whenever I import numpy, >> that's the mode I'm in), and the real advantage of numpy is when >> using native types. If I want exact linear algebra then I'd be using >> Sage types anyways, not numpy. Does this seem reasonable? > > Sounds reasonable to me.
BTW, thanks a lot for looking at these issues, it looks promising! Come autumn I'll make a serious attempt at using Sage proper and report back (or even provide a patch) if I still give it up. Dag Sverre --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
