Re: Question about undocumented notation.

[Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux.fr>]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 01:21:30PM -0600, Juan José Alba González wrote:
> Hi. In the OEIS I run into the following line of pari code:
> 
> intnum(x=0, [[1], 1], 1/gamma(1+x))
> 
> Apparently, this is equivalent to
> 
> intnum(x=0, [+oo, 1], 1/gamma(1+x))
> 
> but the documentation doesn't mention anything like that.
> 
> I'm wondering if they are actually equivalent and why apparently [1] is
> replaced by +oo in this context.

In order PARI version, oo was not supported and [1] was used instead.
The documentation even recommended to do
oo=[1]

PARI still allows [1] as a place-holder for oo to avoid breaking old
GP scripts and the OEIS.

Cheers,
Bill.