Bill Allombert on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:50:15 +0200

 Re: digits(0)

```On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 05:36:04PM +0200, Karim Belabas wrote:
>
> In our normalization, the "0" numeral has no digit. We already have
> similar behaviour for polynomials : the 0 polynomial has no
> coefficients.
>
>   (17:25) gp > Vec(x + 2)    \\ Vec(t_POL) returns the polynomial's coeffs
>   %1 = [1, 2]
>   (17:25) gp > Vec(Pol(1,'x))
>   %2 = [1]
>   (17:26) gp > Vec(Pol(0,'x))
>   %3 = []
>
> So the current definition of digits() is consistent with what we already do.
> On the other hand, it is sometimes convenient to consider polynomials
> with respect to a fixed basis, and "degree drops" are inconvenient.
> So Vec() has an optional argument to fix the vector length:
>   (17:25) gp > Vec(Pol(1,'x), 5)
>   %4 = [1, 0, 0, 0, 0]   \\ 0*x^4 + 0*x^3 + 0*x^2 + 0*x + 1

Maybe we should return the digits in the other order, so that the relation
between the indices in the vector and the weight in the number is more
straightforward.

Cheers,
Bill.

```

• References:
• digits(0)
• From: Mathieu Carbou <mathieu.carbou@gmail.com>
• Re: digits(0)
• From: Karim Belabas <Karim.Belabas@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>