> BTW: 'new' for lists exists mainly because of generic > interface. However normally after 'new' aggregate > is modified. In case of lists in almost all cases it > will be more efficient to create list in incremental way > using desired values instead of modification.
You do have a point, I briefly checked there's not many usage of new$List. > BTW2: If you are worried that [...] is slower than > MAKELIST you should rather work on increasing speed > of list comprehesion (that is [....]). Current > version constructs list in reverse order and then > destructively reverses the result. It is possible to avoid the NREVERSE call? Unless you do it by recursion and risk the stack to explode? What's your opinion on removing IndexedList? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to fricas-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
