+1 for including MPC (initially as an alternative if that is deemed a
safer way to proceed).
John
On 8 February 2010 01:15, YannLC yannlaiglecha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:19 am, Alex Ghitza aghi...@gmail.com wrote:
This is maybe an obvious point, but I'll make it anyway:MPCis brought
On Jan 7, 10:19 am, Alex Ghitza aghi...@gmail.com wrote:
This is maybe an obvious point, but I'll make it anyway:MPCis brought
to you by the makers of MPFR. They care a great deal about correctness,
performance, and portability. Both packages are actively developed and
extensively tested.
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:55:49 -0800, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
I think this should go in as (2), perhaps as an optional package to
start with, assuming the performance issues can be addressed (and it
looks like there's been progress made in that area) it would
On Jan 4, 2010, at 6:29 AM, YannLC wrote:
On 4 jan, 15:06, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
I'm curious where you see this eventually going?
(1) MPComplexField replaces ComplexField
(2) MPComplexField provides an alternative to ComplexField (this is
what you're proposing
YannLC wrote:
Magma now uses MPC (
http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/htmlhelp/rel/node36.htm
)
Shouldn't we at least make it available in Sage ?
(see ticket #4446)
I'm curious where you see this eventually going?
(1) MPComplexField replaces ComplexField
(2) MPComplexField
