I think the idea was that if you cared about speed you would just use Fields(), but that it wasn't an important point in discussing whether QQ in Fields should be valid. David
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 09:06, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > Hi Florent! > > On 2012-03-28, Florent Hivert <florent.hiv...@lri.fr> wrote: > >> For parameter-less categories like Fields, I don't have a feeling for > >> whether one should teach new users to use the idiom ``X in Fields`` or > >> ``X in Fields()``. I tend to use the later mysefl. > > > > Speed could be a (not so important) argument. > > Not so important??? I take speed very seriously. And by the way, testing > containment is even faster if you assign Fields() to a > constant, e.g. > > sage: FieldsCat = Fields() > sage: QQ in Fields > True > sage: QQ in FieldsCat > True > sage: %timeit QQ in Fields > 625 loops, best of 3: 11.4 µs per loop > sage: %timeit QQ in Fields() > 625 loops, best of 3: 4.14 µs per loop > sage: %timeit QQ in FieldsCat > 625 loops, best of 3: 1.86 µs per loop > > Cheers, > 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 > -- 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
