Igor Schein on Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:34:51 -0400 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: yet another rnfkummer() posting |
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 07:30:45PM +0200, Karim BELABAS wrote: > I believe this would make bnfinit() about 3 times slower for easy examples > (say a few minutes running time), and it shouldn't be noticeable for tough > examples. In short it should be quite OK for individual fields, but possibly > annoying for large scale computations dealing with a lot of fields. My preliminary vote is against the default slowdown. > > For direct calls to bnfinit, there's always the possibility of explicitly > cheating by fixing C2, but for internal calls in high level fonction (e.g > rnfkummer, bnrstark, etc), the user is stuck, unless we make C2 a 'default', > but then we first have to make the library aware of defaults first [ which > would not be a bad thing ] > > Still thinking... Maybe make C, C2 global defaults? Igor