Hey Simon, Sorry for my delay, I was on a transpacific flight and recovering from that.
> > On 2017-08-17, tsc...@ucdavis.edu <javascript:> <tsc...@ucdavis.edu > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> What kind of polynomials is involved in that test? libsingular? > > > > I believe they are the generic polynomials: > > > > sage: type(M.some_elements()[3]._x) > ><class > > > 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring.PolynomialRing_field_with_category.element_class' > > > > Hm. Then I wonder how one could speed-up the coefficient mapping. > map_coefficients > is cython already. Certainly for things like libsingular polynomials it > would be > a *lot* faster to not use the generic implementation, that's why I was > asking. > > It is in a cython file, but it is not a cpdef method. However, I think avoiding dict() (and using .iteritems() instead of items() because it is Cython [so it is still Py3 compatible]) for non-sparse polynomials is good. Actually, as you suggest, using the specific data structures would likely be a lot faster. Do you want to start work on this, which I will happily review, or do you want me to? Best, Travis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-release+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
