Why not have all three? Pochhammer, rising_factorial, falling_factorial.
The first two would be synonyms for the same thing.
Kostas
Robert Dodier wrote:
>
>> 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.
>