[GiNaC-devel] Lst test in clifford.cpp

[Chris Dams]

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