Hi Leif, On 24 Sep., 16:28, leif <not.rea...@online.de> wrote: > A smarter compiler would [have] remove[d] *the whole loop*, since the > loop body is completely dead code (for 2/3 rather than 2.0/3, because > abs(...)<0 will never hold).
Since we talk about a spyx-file (not pyx), the Sage preparser is applied to 2/3, if I am not mistaken. Hence, 2/3 is not 0 but the rational number 2/3. However, since the left hand side is a double, the comparison is faster if the right hand side is a double as well. And even if 2/3 was 0, would the compiler really know that the function "abs" can not return a negative number? > for root in []: ... > > does *not* change the (previous) value of 'root'. (In fact, the > construct above doesn't define 'root' at all.) That's part of my additions to the code: It helps a lot if the compiler knows that 'root' is a ComplexDoubleElement. Best regards, Simon -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
