Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: FWIW, I don't agree with the reasoning on the rejection. Hundreds of calculator layouts and school textbooks suggest that you can have a useful factorial function without having to also add binomials and whatnot.
The OP requested a simple, widely understood integer method with no arguments. That seems very reasonable to me. A function or method is not clutter if it has widespread uses and a near zero learning curve. This is a re-invented function and it would be ashamed to not offer it because it is a pita every time you need it and it's not already there. My guess is that half of long-term Python programmers have written their own variant at some point but only a small percentage of those went on to write a binomial coeffient function. Eventhough this is re-invented often, it is not often re-invented well (i.e. good error messages for non-integer or negative inputs, a fast implementation with pre-computed values for small inputs, and being attached to a namespace where you can find it when needed). To compare, I checked the somewhat clean SmallTalk Integer API and found it had factorial, gcd, and lcm, but not the other functions mentioned in the thread. See: http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/samples/smalltalk.methods.html#Integer%20methods Re-opening for further discussion. If someone still feels that it is a bad idea, then go ahead and re-close; otherwise, I think we ought to accept this guy's request. ---------- resolution: rejected -> status: closed -> open __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2138> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
