Benoît Legat

Indeed, it should be ``` 2-element Array{Array{PolyVar{true},1},1}: [x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄] [x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄] ```

We omit the `*` for conciseness as the variables usually only have only one symbol. One idea would be to use `*` in case at least one variables have multiple...

This seem to resolve one design decision I had to make and I apparently did wrong ^^ Given a coefficient `a` and a monomial `m`, how do we build a...

It should work with https://github.com/JuliaAlgebra/DynamicPolynomials.jl/pull/75 and https://github.com/JuliaAlgebra/MultivariatePolynomials.jl/pull/149

Comparing the variables by name will be slower since we need to do string comparison (even comparison of symbol is handled with string comparison if you look into Julia source...

This is weird, MA should be much faster for this with less allocations. Does the issue persist if `mt[i, j]` is replaced by `i + (j - 1) * N`...

https://github.com/JuliaAlgebra/DynamicPolynomials.jl/pull/65 solves one part of the performance issue but it's still slower.

The issue is that `fill(zero(T), maximum(mt))` uses the same polynomial for every entry so it's slower because it modifies a large polynomial. You should use `[zero(T) for i in 1:maximum(mt)]`...

Yes, I would be interested by a PR. Could you define the part for polynomial and terms in https://github.com/JuliaAlgebra/MultivariatePolynomials.jl like it's done for differentiate ? Also, the function `antidifferentiate` should...

The issue is that the `eltype` of `xs` is not concrete so `zero` does not work. This is because the vector comprehension widen the eltype instead of promoting the elements...