Dear Vladimir and others, On Wed, 10 May 2006, Vladimir Kisil wrote:
is_a<lst>(e) --> e.info(info_flags::list)
The former tests fail with lst created by boostPython (e.g. pyGiNaC) and the later are passed. I did the change in clifford.cpp and wondering if it should be applied everywhere.
Shouldn't this be considered a problem that is to be solved in pyGiNaC instead of in GiNaC? After all I think that users of pyGiNaC should be able to use is_a<lst> for the lists that they create. Does it also go wrong in user code? Does it go wrong with other types than lst? Another point against this is that I just measured that is_a<lst> is faster if one uses -O2 optimization than .info(info_flags::list) (but slower if -O2 is not used). This could, however, be platform/compiler/whatnot-dependent. Best wishes, Chris