The docstring says it should be an integer. And it also says -1 means all integers are expanded. So should it really accept any real number?
I did notice that factlim:3.0 works (with HEAD), but then double_factorial(6) returns 48.00000...1. But with the default factlim value of 100000, double_factorial returns 48. Not sure what's going with that, but that's probably a different issue from this one.
Easy enough to add a :setting-predicate for factlim to make sure it's a real (or integer) so that it only accepts numbers.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
See the branch issue-4669-numeric-value-for-factlim for a fix. Only integer values (positive or negative) are accepted now.
double_factorial appears not to be documented, but !! is. Also, with factlim:3, double_factorial(6) returns 48.00000000000001 but 6!! returns 48. Are they not the same functions, just with different names?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The docstring says it should be an integer. And it also says -1 means all integers are expanded. So should it really accept any real number?
I did notice that
factlim:3.0works (with HEAD), but thendouble_factorial(6)returns 48.00000...1. But with the defaultfactlimvalue of 100000,double_factorialreturns 48. Not sure what's going with that, but that's probably a different issue from this one.Easy enough to add a
:setting-predicateforfactlimto make sure it's a real (or integer) so that it only accepts numbers.See the branch issue-4669-numeric-value-for-factlim for a fix. Only integer values (positive or negative) are accepted now.
double_factorialappears not to be documented, but!!is. Also, withfactlim:3,double_factorial(6)returns 48.00000000000001 but6!!returns 48. Are they not the same functions, just with different names?Merged issue-4669-numeric-value-for-factlim, which enforces
factlimto be any integer value. See commit [64ff7d]Related
Commit: [64ff7d]