-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 161
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Key dependent operation #514
Conversation
Probably just paranoid, but the call to oper may have changed `known', or even stored the required information.
P.S. I might also add a binary search, somehow hurts to see a linear search in a sorted list. |
This seems like a prime application for the caching framework that @fingolfin was suggesting (also in view to HPC-GAP merge) |
Ah, so the syntax would be
and
Is that right? |
BTW, I find these as excellent and very useful functions, thank you very much for the effort. Have not tested it, yet, though. |
@hungaborhorvath Yes, that's the syntax. There's an example in the manual section. |
This is a very nice idea. I also agree with @bh11's remarks on the UPDATE: I just noticed that there IS already an example (and thus test case) in the manual, so please disregard my bogus prior comment |
f74fa7b
to
63e0e10
Compare
63e0e10
to
473efad
Compare
add tester and setter operations for key dependent operation This also adds a binary search for stored attributes and fixes a potential problem when the underlying operation changes the mutable attribute.
add setter and tester operations for KeyDependentOperations
This should make it easier to handle the problems raised in #412 and #511.
In the long run, it might be a good idea to "undocument" the Computed… attribute itself, and maybe replace it by a dictionary object.
This PR also fixes a potential problem when computing a value, the Computed… attribute gets changed (because the called method computed other attribute values on the way, etc).