#6637: standardize the interface to TransitiveIdeal and friends
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nthiery | Owner: mhansen
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: backtrack, | Merged in:
enumerated set, transitive | Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
closure, days57 | Work issues:
Authors: Sébastien Labbé | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | d8b942bf45c05f4df5fe093b0b63ac63e7127db6
Branch: | Stopgaps:
public/ticket/6637 |
Dependencies: #14052 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by slabbe):
I do gain one more second with your improvements. Great!
{{{
sage: sage: f = lambda a: [a-1,a+1]
sage: sage: C = RecursivelyEnumeratedSet([10, 15], f,
structure='symmetric')
sage: sage: it = iter(C)
sage: sage: %time L = [next(it) for _ in xrange(10^6)]
CPU times: user 3.49 s, sys: 246 ms, total: 3.74 s
Wall time: 3.79 s
}}}
I do not like factory function in general and was happy to use for the
first the metaclass stuff. But apparently, it is not as efficient? Did you
check if only removing the metaclass stuff was giving a speedup?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6637#comment:40>
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/d/optout.
