#14711: Weak references in the coercion graph
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jpflori | Owner: davidloeffler
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: critical | Milestone: sage-6.0
Component: number fields | Resolution:
Keywords: memleak, number | Merged in:
field, QuadraticField | Reviewers:
Authors: Simon King | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | ee30c20b0adc9878a13c8286c96ee5e972e2b002
u/SimonKing/ticket/14711 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
Replying to [comment:154 nbruin]:
> For (sub)scheme equality testing, should there be a fast path returning
true for identical schemes?
Isn't this what happens when doing `==` in python?
> There are of course other fast "true" cases: When ideals have the same
generators then equality can be determined pretty quickly too. (it
wouldn't surprise me if singular already had that optimization)
Indeed. But I think we already have a ticket for comparison of ideals---
with the additional complication that the hash of ideals must involve a
Gröbner basis computation as well.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14711#comment:155>
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.
