> > I think I would generally support including the code you are > proposing, assuming a referee is happy with the code. (I insist > however on the spelling "caching" rather than "cacheing" :-)) > No problem. For me cache is a french word. Hence cacheing. But Google seems to favor caching by far....
> Qualification: obviously, if this ever gets integrated with the > FractionField constructor, it should be only *optional*... I would > expect there would be many applications where the caching would > actually slow things down. What do you think about this? > Well if you look at the benchmarks you see that if libSingular is used then for very small examples caching is indeed is a bit slower that the generic implementation. I would I have to investigate what the cause is of this. This being said I actually want FractionField_cache to be optional so that I can improve it without disrupting anything else. Om my sage installation I have given the FractionField method an extra optional parameter 'cache=' which when true returns an instance of FractionField_cache instead of FractionField_generic. Michel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
