memoize and options
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Macaulay2
- Stars
- 435
- Forks
- 297
- Avg merge
- 4d 20h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 11
Description
Should `memoize` be sensitive to options?
I can see arguments both ways:
1. sometimes the options contain important parameters, like coefficient ring or variable name (e.g. see https://github.com/Macaulay2/M2/pull/3481#discussion_r1768381949);
2. on the other hand, sometimes options are just verbosity level or strategy, and if the code has already run maybe we don't care about that.
I don't think using `memoize` (as opposed to other means of caching) should be recommended anyway, so maybe this is a moot point.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue does not name any files, tests, or entry points. Start by locating the implementation and documentation for `memoize`, then determine how options currently participate in cached results. Done requires a decided, documented behavior for options and corresponding coverage, but the issue does not define that behavior.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100