On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Sergiu Ivanov <unlimitedscol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Aaron Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> And lastly, if anyone has any thoughts on how we could canonically >> order the arguments of Add and Mul independent of hash values, but is >> still just as fast as hash values, I would love to hear it. If we >> could do that, it would make fixing these errors a lot easier (on the >> other hand, maybe we would be better off design-wise if we made >> everything .arg ordering agnostic). > > From my recent experience, using sympy.utilities.misc.default_sort_key > is a nice way to canonically order things. As far as I can see in the > code, it doesn't seem to rely on hashes for sorting; instead, it > provides sort keys which are tuples often (not sure how often) > including native numbers and strings. I *think* it's not going to be > just as fast as hash-based ordering, but, I guess, it's going to be > one of the fastest approaches, because, eventually, simple native > types will be compared.
So, what is the official position as far as sorting the arguments of Mul and Arg is concerned? I have seen you say that things should be made to work independently of the ordering; is that the current strategy? Sergiu -- 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.
