This is an interesting proposal. Would the user (of the Z_poly_t) have control over what underlying representation is chosen? How would it decide? Would there be automatic coercions from one type to another doing arithmetic? Would this slow the process to getting FLINT "ready to go"?
Also, would NTL then be a build requirement for FLINT? Would that make FLINT into a C++ package? Or is this something on top of both? - Robert On Sep 15, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Bill Hart wrote: > OK, I think I can do this in a way that is agnostic regarding the way > SAGE does things. > > FLINT will offer a polynomial format called Z_poly_t. You will be able > to convert in and out via text strings, and obviously you will be able > to get/set coefficients to a given mpz_t and unsigned/signed long. NTL > doesn't offer any more than that, so this can't slow SAGE down. > > For the time being FLINT will also offer a function to convert in and > out from an NTL ZZX. This will enable a smooth transition over to the > new type. But basically this won't be needed for long because the new > Z_poly_t type will encapsulate all of FLINT and NTL, in which case > SAGE may as well do away with the NTL ZZX as a fundamental type since > it won't be needed for anything. > > The only question is, does SAGE ever currently convert directly from > an NTL ZZX to another NTL polynomial format without going via mpz_t's > or some other non-NTL type of integer? > > And I presume the basic integer format in SAGE is not an NTL ZZ, but > either an mpz_t or some kind of python or C integer depending on the > size? So SAGE would never need to deal with ZZ's. > > Bill. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
