Re: silly behavior of factor(6)

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20100422102217.070d94fa@localhost>,  <markucz%gmail.com@localhost> 
wrote:
>> Does anyone know of any reason to maintain this silly behavior?
>> 
>> (And does anyone want to bikeshed about whether 0 should generate
>>    0: 0
>> or
>>    0:
>> or nothing at all but continue to the next number?)
>Well, if you can factor 1, why not 0 too? If 'factor 1' gives '1: 1', I guess
>'factor 0' should be '0: 0'. At least it won't break piping to e.g. awk and
>will keep factor's behaviour consistent. If it continues to the next number
>you'll get one line less of output which might be confusing. It doesn't
>really matter, just flip a coin :)

On linux it prints:

0:

christos