On 30 Apr., 23:41, "Aaron S. Meurer" <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote: > > > > > Le samedi 30 avril 2011 à 13:36 -0400, Haz a écrit : > >> So a few things to respond to... > > >> Tom: > >>> Can you describe what went wrong with these branches? In particular, > >>> why can the following naive strategy not work: > > >>> 1. Make the new system at least as good as the old one. That is > >>> whenever I can write foo.is_bar I can write ask(foo, Q.bar) and I > >> will > >>> get at least as good an answer. In particular Symbol('x', > >>> positive=True) should register automatically in the global > >> assumptions > >>> that x > 0 (if I understand correctly how the new system works...). > >>> 2. Replace all queries foo.is_bar by ask(foo, Q.bar). > >>> 3. Remove all implementations of the is_bar properties. > >>> 4. Remove all remaining remnants of the old system. > > >> This is what was largely tried with a branch last summer: > >> -https://github.com/haz/sympy/tree/disconnect-assumptions-2 > > >> There was push-back from the community since removing the > >> Symbol('x', positive=True) syntax was largely frowned upon. > > > As I recall, the problems were that it was slow and broke a lot of > > things. Symbol(x, positive=True) is easy to hack back in. > > >> Vinzent: > >>> I think the only problem could be that ask() is much slower for > >>> trivial queries, needs to be verified. This should be not too hard to > >>> fix though. > > >> I don't think this is the case. Trivial queries (those that already > >> have obvious implications) are compiled into quick reference > >> dictionaries. In particular: > >> -https://github.com/sympy/sympy/blob/master/sympy/assumptions/ask.py#L114 > > > I think that the problem is with non-trivial queries, for which that > > code does nothing. > > >> In the end, everything in the new assumption system is done with a > >> particular assumption context -- design decisions must be made on > >> which context is used in the ambiguous cases. There is also an issue > >> (feature request) that makes things more natural that will be worked > >> on after the assumptions shift has taken place -- things like the > >> following would be possible: > > >> with <some assumptions on variables>: > >> <do stuff> > > >> This gives the assumptions an explicit local scope. The branch from > >> last summer was mostly filled with fixing test cases so they used the > >> new assumption system (with the global assumptions), and then cleaned > >> up after themselves. > > >> It should also be emphasized that it isn't just a simple notion of > >> cleaning up assumptions after yourself -- the cache interacts in quite > >> an intertwined way. Under the right assumptions, expressions will be > >> simplified, and variables will be assigned certain values. If that's > >> stored in the cache, changing any related assumption will invalidate > >> the result. For this reason, I had to manually clear the cache on a > >> regular basis. I think that the cache is only really needed for > >> lengthy solve algorithms (so you don't recompute an expression over > >> and over), in which case we can probably wipe it after any sympy > >> command is invoked (i.e., only use the cache while sympy is computing > >> things, and then flush it just before returning the result). However, > >> the branches from last summer never made it this far. > > > The cache is the source of a lot of problems. We should try to use it as > > little as possible, even if it's not really possible to remove it at > > this time. > > If a specific algorithm is slow without the cache, I think it should be > rewritten to not do duplicate calculations. >
Why? For example in gruntz, the performance depends quite a lot of caching mrv computations, limit computations, and order computations. Since these hardly arise in a controlled manner, the only way I can see to not recompute is to roll a separate cache - what would be the point of this? IMHO we should definitely keep the cache. When something breaks it, it is ill-designed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.