#15303: Coercion discovery fails to be transitive
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nbruin | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.13
Component: coercion | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Simon King | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues: Crash in permgroup.py
Branch: | Commit:
u/SimonKing/ticket/15303 | 807550bbc45e9872ac365fc98b817ccd5bcfbb95
Dependencies: #14711, #15329, | Stopgaps:
#15331 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
With
{{{
#!python
def test_set2(list L):
global testset
testset = set([])
for X in L:
for Y in L:
testset.add((<Py_ssize_t><void *>X, <Py_ssize_t><void
*>Y,"test"))
(<Py_ssize_t><void *>X, <Py_ssize_t><void *>Y,"test") in
testset
(<Py_ssize_t><void *>X, <Py_ssize_t><void *>Y,"fail") in
testset
for X in L:
for Y in L:
try:
testset.remove((<Py_ssize_t><void *>X, <Py_ssize_t><void
*>Y,"test"))
except KeyError:
pass
}}}
I get a further speed-up:
{{{
sage: %time test_set2(L)
CPU times: user 3.18 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 3.18 s
Wall time: 3.19 s
}}}
So, the speed-up we can get for marking/unmarking/testing of arrows in the
coerce digraph during backtracking is a factor of about 4.5.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15303#comment:88>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
