I see. The difference in memory consumption is definitely an issue. On Friday, 1 June 2012 15:03:00 UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote: > > One reason to not interpret scientific notation as integers is to > avoid unintended huge memory consumption. Most of the time, scientific > notation is meant to denote floats: > > sage: 1e323228496 > 1.00000000000000e323228496 > > and if this is intended, interpreting the thing as an integer leads to > nasty surprises: > > sage: 1*10^323228496 > <better have a lot of memory> > > Anyway, this example also shows that sage already has scientific > notation for integers. You just need to spell the "e" as "*10^". It's > a very flexible notation, since it also easily allows scientific > notation with respect to other bases. It's very unlikely that there > are many serious uses for integers divisible by large powers of 10 > that aren't equally interesting for other large powers, so there is > little reason to introduce a special notation for them. >
-- 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
