Re: #matr~ vs ##matr

Bill Allombert on Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:10:08 +0100

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

Re: #matr~ vs ##matr

To: pari-dev@pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr
Subject: Re: #matr~ vs ##matr
From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux.fr>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 15:10:05 +0100
Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:10:08 +0100
In-reply-to: <20210205134643.ihupkp7klxab4cxb@math.berkeley.edu>
Mail-followup-to: pari-dev@pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr
References: <20210205134643.ihupkp7klxab4cxb@math.berkeley.edu>
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 05:46:43AM -0800, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> Hi, two questions below seem to be orthogonal:
> 
>   Is #matr~ optimized by the compiler?

No, but you can do either #mat[,1] or matsize(mat)[1]

Cheers,
Bill

Follow-Ups:
- Re: #matr~ vs ##matr
  - From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>

References:
- #matr~ vs ##matr
  - From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>

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