On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:05:55 -0800, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think on a 32-bit machine it's something like 24 bytes versus 4 >> bytes. > > I actually implemented this as a python list, using the unsafe > PyList_SET_ITEM api. I could probably squeeze a bit more out of it > using a PyObject** directly, though I'm curious as to how much. > > I was also thinking about caching inverses in the elements (either at > calculation time or ring creation time (can this be done faster than > iterating over about half the list?)) since this is probably the most > expensive operation commonly done with these elements. This could > certainly be a saving when the element are already all in a table, > but I'm not sure how to (very quickly) decide to do so otherwise.
Before getting into this sort of thing you should compare notes with Martin A. and his Givaro stuff -- doesn't it already do all this sort of caching!? I.e., it reduces multiplication and division to addition of ints, which is the same difficulty as a table lookup. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
