On Sep 4, 4:58 am, Bill Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't personally like the name mpz_practical_prime_p(). The reason is that
> it doesn't mean anything particular to anyone but us.
I also doubt that it will help to have two differenet functions that
appear to do the same job to anyone who is unaware of the subtleties
involved.
I would personally prefer to call this a test:
mpz_prime_test(mpz_t n, enum alg, uint trials) + rand_state?
to avoid potentially confusing names.
I am also uneasy about returning true for something that might be
false even if we do represent this uncertainty in the name.
How about this:
mpz_is_composite(mpz_t n) that returns 1 if composite or 0 if the
test fails (compositeness undetermined).
for Jason's 'practical prime' proposal?
We can then explain that this removes most composites rapidly and
allows the more costly but more precise prime tests for numers that
remain.
Brian
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
