Message210512
| Author |
mark.dickinson |
| Recipients |
gdr@garethrees.org, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pitrou, skrah, vstinner |
| Date |
2014年02月07日.18:23:30 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1391797410.31.0.788250139434.issue20539@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> nitpicking a bit: negative values should probably raise a proper ValueError, no?
I think they do, with this patch. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding?
With the current form of the patch:
>>> math.factorial(10**20)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: factorial() argument outrageously large
>>> math.factorial(-10**20)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: factorial() not defined for negative values |
|