On 5/2/07, Barton Willis <willisb at unk.edu> wrote:
> There is code in conjugate & asum that references pochhammer. Would
> it be OK to move the pochhammer code into asum.lisp?
OK by me.
> Since genfact generalizes pochhammer, I suppose it could be argued that
> pochhammer needn't be defined anywhere. A better name for
> pochhammer might be rising_factorial (so we could also have
> the falling_factorial). Comments?
I think I'd prefer to leave the name as pochhammer.
> There is some code for converting pochhammer to TeX. I suppose this
> should be moved into mactex?
OK by me.
Thanks for working on this topic.
Robert