Re: silly behavior of factor(6)

[markucz%gmail.com@localhost]

> Since the manual specifies "positive integer", 0 is invalid input (it's 
> not in Z+).  If one instead means "non-negative" (x>=0), 0 has infinite 
> factors.  The manual might want to specify (x>0) to note that positive 
> does not mean non-negative.
I still remember my math, thank you very much. Strictly speaking, a '1' isn't
valid argument either, since it has no prime factors. So if you break the
rules once, why not twice? factor should either stay as it is, or display
'0: 0' for the sake of consistency. FYI, GNU factor accepts both 0 and 1 but
outputs '0:' and '1:'.

Just my two pennies worth.