Re: #matr~ vs ##matr

Ilya Zakharevich on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 04:39:42 +0100

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: #matr~ vs ##matr

To: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux.fr>
Subject: Re: #matr~ vs ##matr
From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:39:38 -0800
Cc: pari-dev@pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr
Delivery-date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 04:39:42 +0100
In-reply-to: <20210205141005.GB17556@yellowpig>
References: <20210205134643.ihupkp7klxab4cxb@math.berkeley.edu> <20210205141005.GB17556@yellowpig>
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)

On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 03:10:05PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >   Is #matr~ optimized by the compiler?
> 
> No, but you can do either #mat[,1] or matsize(mat)[1]

Well, it was discussed here already: the former is not equivalent to
#matr~.  They differ if #mattr=0.

Thisi is ONE of the reasons why I think ## and ### may be quite
useful.

Ilya

References:
- #matr~ vs ##matr
  - From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
- Re: #matr~ vs ##matr
  - From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: New GP function ellrank (2-descent)
Next by Date: Re: New GP function ellrank (2-descent)
Previous by thread: Re: #matr~ vs ##matr
Next by thread: New GP function ellrank (2-descent)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread