On Saturday, May 25, 2013 6:38:00 AM UTC-4, Volker Braun wrote: > On Saturday, May 25, 2013 2:39:36 AM UTC+1, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > >> * either replace the private reimplementation of matrices or give a >>> good reason for why it is necessary >>> >> Wasn't the second point addressed in http://trac.sagemath.org/14627, so >>> shouldn't the matrices be replaced? >>> >> > Well I hope so but there might be another performance bottleneck that the > matroid code hits. Maybe one of the authors can tell us more about it? >
I'd have to check carefully. There's likely to be some performance loss even when all obvious bottlenecks are accounted for, because for our special classes BinaryMatrix, TernaryMatrix, QuaternaryMatrix we use inline get() and set() methods that bypass the Sage finite field elements. We want this code to push the limits of matroid computation, so we'd hate to incur even a 10% speed loss. And as Travis said, issues with the documentation etc. can be fixed over time. We intend to use, improve, and expand this code for a long, long time. --Stefan. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
