On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Jeroen Demeyer <j.deme...@ugent.be> wrote:
> On 2018-03-12 23:07, Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> Your example doesn't convince me at all that we need this change though.
>> You should only consider making a change if you have a real-world
>> example that would significantly benefit and if you can show that
>> degradation in other normal use is minimal. A simplistic "timeit"
>> statement, although instructive, does not necessarily illustrate
>> real-world usage.
>
>
> I can imagine a small function constructing a matrix (for which it needs to
> construct the MatrixSpace) to do some computation but not keeping that
> matrix in memory. For example, the output of that function could be the
> determinant of the matrix. If this function is called from a loop, you end
> up in the scenario that I described.

Doesn't Sage allow creating mutable matrices?  In a case like that you
should mutate the object rather than go through expensive object
creation over and over.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to