I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question,
but I'll do it anyway:
Why is var._fast_float_(const) so much slower than
fast_float(var,'const')?
Example without giving the long definition of the variable 'long':
%time
longfast=long.subs(locals())._fast_float_(av)
gives:
On Aug 28, 1:52 am, Stan Schymanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question,
but I'll do it anyway:
It would probably have been better to start a new thread in sage-
support.
Why is var._fast_float_(const) so much slower than
Hi Carl,
On Aug 28, 10:15 pm, Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would probably have been better to start a new thread in sage-
support.
OK, I will remember for the next time, thanks.
The difference I see between the fast and slow cases is whether av is
a string or a symbolic object.
I was one of the people who discussed this at dev1, and give a very
positive +1 to it (especially possible code auto generation).
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Carl Witty wrote:
I can't find any caching for fast_float objects (I can't see
On Jun 28, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
During Developer Days 1, I announced that I wanted to rewrite
fast_float to support evaluation over more types, to handle common
subexpressions, and to handle conditional expressions. I've started
this project by writing a new version of the
On Jun 30, 11:44 pm, Robert Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As the author of the original fast_float stuff, I want to give a big
+1 to this project. I've been wanting to do something like this for
some time but it's never gotten high enough on my priority list to
actually code up. One
I think common subexpressions should be (loosely) checked for
equality, *not* restricting to the same Python instance only.
Hmm... this is a tradeoff between speed in constructing the
fast_callable and speed in using it. Do other people think that
common subexpressions are likely?
In my
I can't find any caching for fast_float objects (I can't see anywhere
they would get attached to a symbolic expression or a polynomial). Am
I just not looking in the right place?
Compiled polynomials get attached to polynomial objects, but if
you're not seeing fast floats getting
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Carl Witty wrote:
I can't find any caching for fast_float objects (I can't see anywhere
they would get attached to a symbolic expression or a polynomial). Am
I just not looking in the right place?
Compiled polynomials get attached to polynomial objects, but if
Emphatic +1!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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:
On Jun 28, 1:55 pm, Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
During Developer Days 1, I announced that I wanted to rewrite
fast_float to support evaluation over more types, to handle common
subexpressions, and to handle conditional expressions. I've started
this project by writing a new version
On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 28, 1:55 pm, Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Carl,
During Developer Days 1, I announced that I wanted to rewrite
fast_float to support evaluation over more types, to handle common
subexpressions, and to handle
mabshoff wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 28, 1:55 pm, Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Carl,
During Developer Days 1, I announced that I wanted to rewrite
fast_float to support evaluation over more types, to handle common
subexpressions, and
On Jun 28, 4:45 pm, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mabshoff wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
What is the policy on breaking backward compatibility of pickling at
major releases (e.g., 4.0)?
I would consider it unacceptable to break backward
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:57 PM, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 28, 4:45 pm, Jason Grout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mabshoff wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:10 pm, Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
What is the policy on breaking backward compatibility of pickling at
major
15 matches
Mail list logo
