On 2016-06-02 17:17, William Stein wrote:
have an explicit method (e.g., .multiplicative_inverse())?
That's bad for several reasons:
1. Python types won't support it. This new operator is meant to increase compatibility between Sage and Python. I think it's very unlikely that Python types will get a multiplicative_inverse() method.
2. x.multiplicative_inverse() is incredibly verbose for such a basic operation.
3. Method lookup is much slower than an operator. So I think this is out of the question.
surely we can just make 1/ efficient
This makes more sense. It is also an argument which is likely to come up if we would propose this to Python upstream.
Implementation wise, we could special-case 1/x in the coercion model division and call a c(p)def method x.multiplicative_inverse(). It will be slower than having a dedicated operator but not so bad.
Still, it would be cool to have an operator for the reciprocal. Jeroen. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
