➜
See More

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author FR4NKESTI3N
Recipients FR4NKESTI3N, josh.r, kellerfuchs, mark.dickinson, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, steven.daprano, tim.peters
Date 2019-01-29.05:44:25
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <[email protected]>
In-reply-to
Content 
Agreed, comb sounds much better than combination. And using the name binomial would make it sound like something that would puke out whole binomial series rather than a single coefficient(maybe leave it for that in case is it decided to be useful in the future).

PR 11414 implements simple algorithm that performs slower than using a factorial definition for k>n/3. 
@kellerfuchs I'd prefer if we could work on this since it's conflict free and already reflects the behavior everyone agreed upon. 

Would it be better to create a separate issue for math.perm to discuss its behavior?


If the behavior of comb is satisfactory, can we start with optimizations?
History
Date User Action Args
2019-01-29 05:44:27FR4NKESTI3Nsetrecipients: + FR4NKESTI3N, tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, steven.daprano, serhiy.storchaka, josh.r, kellerfuchs
2019-01-29 05:44:25FR4NKESTI3Nsetmessageid: <[email protected]>
2019-01-29 05:44:25FR4NKESTI3Nlinkissue35431 messages
2019-01-29 05:44:25FR4NKESTI3Ncreate