> I'm surprised to see so little common sense in all the discussions about > factor(6). The reasons why 1, -1 or negative numbers are not defined as
i couldn't agree more. i don't even seen why it matters what the definition of "prime" is for this. irrespective of what a prime number is, "1" is a factor of "1" in all cases. so "factor 1" is well defined and should produce a reasonable result. factor prints prime factors normally because those are useful, but they are not the *only* factors that exist. please make factor print factors again, even if there are no actual prime factors involved. .mrg.
