On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 at 01:58PM -0400, Jason Bandlow wrote: > > At the moment there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way. > > If you have an opinion on this, please vote! Let x be an explicit > > numerical value such that x is not a non-negative integer (e.g. x=2/3, > > x=1.5, or x=i). The options are: > > > > A) factorial(x) should raise an error; > > > > B) factorial(x) should return gamma(x+1). > > > > I vote for A, as long as the gamma function is referred to in the > docstring for factorial (which is not currently the case).
The current docstring for factorial needs some work -- for example, it claims to accept an algorithm keyword, but does not. See ticket #9248. Currently, factorial() is just a wrapper around the corresponding GiNaC function, which does not always produce the same output as gamma(x+1) -- see the description for #9248. Whatever we do, we need to make sure the docstring is accurate! Dan -- --- Dan Drake ----- http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake -------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
