#16320: Handle finite slices for infinite enumerate sets
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: tscrim | Owner: sage-combinat
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.1
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: infinite | Merged in:
enumerated set slices | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Authors: Travis Scrimshaw | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | c98c031962a09ace59f317e1553f0b161cfec410
public/infinite_enum_set_slices-16320| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by tscrim):
* status: needs_work => needs_review
Comment:
Alright, so I tried to allow the iterator to go over the infinite sets if
`stop` was not specified. I also had to implement some methods for Galois
groups `G` as they did not have `list(G) == G.list()`, but they will be
faster than the generic implementation this way too.
I'm slightly worried we will see a speed regression on finite enumerated
sets because it will be repeatedly calling `unrank`, which is
asymptotically significantly slower than created the full list of elements
and pulling from that (i.e., it is implicitly using a cache). My intuition
tells me that this will not likely be used in practice (well, at least
doing something like `P[i]` in a tight loop), but perhaps your
experience/intuition says different?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16320#comment:34>
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.
