#19163: LatticePoset creation: Empty argument, better error reporting
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jmantysalo | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: combinatorics | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jori Mäntysalo | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/jmantysalo/latticeposet_creation__empty_argument__better_error_reporting|
b42c0e7cabca4264e55291ff5e6114d1d00a0a7b
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:16 jmantysalo]:
> Replying to [comment:15 tscrim]:
> > Also, the `int(error.message.split()[3][2:])` creates many, many new
transient objects: the `split`, in and of itself, creates a new list, plus
the `int`, plus each of the strings in the split.
>
> Maybe I can optimize if, it one microsecond is too much...
That was mainly as a counterpoint to your statement creating objects is
more costly than string parsing. I strongly believe string parsing is an
evil practice. The fact that it is (micro) slower is just a small part of
that belief. The much bigger issue is the readability, extendability, and
fragility of the code.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19163#comment:18>
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
