On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 03:40:47AM -0800, Andrew Mathas wrote:
>Thanks for the explanation Nicolas. Rather than building a (lazy)
>dictionary I would have thought that replacing rank() with
>self._list.index(x) would be the ay to go?
It depends on the size of the set. _list.index(x) ha
Thanks for the explanation Nicolas. Rather than building a (lazy)
dictionary I would have thought that replacing rank() with
self._list.index(x) would be the ay to go?
Andrew
On Thursday, 13 December 2012 20:23:11 UTC+11, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:06:41AM +0100, Vi
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:06:41AM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> I actually did it in #8920 and removed as it appears that it slows
> down everything as to test
> my_object in my_dictionnary
> the object my_object needs to be hashable and you have to catch the
> error. Perhaps I did it the wr
2012/12/13, Nicolas M. Thiery :
> Hi Andrew!
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:37:19PM -0800, Andrew Mathas wrote:
>>I have being trying to find the right idiom for look-up and reverse
>> look
>>ups in large enumerated sets. Prior to sage, I simply would have made
>> a
>>large list o
Hi Andrew!
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:37:19PM -0800, Andrew Mathas wrote:
>I have being trying to find the right idiom for look-up and reverse look
>ups in large enumerated sets. Prior to sage, I simply would have made a
>large list of the elements in the enumerated set and the
Morning!
I have being trying to find the right idiom for look-up and reverse look
ups in large enumerated sets. Prior to sage, I simply would have made a
large list of the elements in the enumerated set and then just used
__getitem__ (implictly) and index().
I thought that in sage here might b
