On Aug 27, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Craig Citro wrote: > >> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> I vote for fast. >>> >> >> I also vote for fast -- but couldn't there be a flag for the slow >> option? Maybe "consistent=True" or something, in case someone really >> wants it? I could at least imagine a case where someone might >> care, in >> which case we might as well have the code there, since you've already >> written it ... > > An example where this matters is if one has a dictionary where the > matrices are keys. Thus if one keyed on sparse matrices, and tried > to look > up based on a dense matrix, one would get a key error. > > I vote for both (if possible...).
I believe I have an algorithm to compute the hash of a matrix over GF (2) that should match the old hash and be (essentially) as fast as the new. I'll try and code it up tonight. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
