Re: [OT] __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Chris Jefferson wrote:

> What we are debating here isn't really maths at all, just the 
> definition which will be most useful and least suprising (and perhaps 
> also what various standards tell us to use).

Also, since we are definitely striving to consistently implement the 
current C99 and C++ Standards, it's *totally* pointless discussing 0^0 
in the real domain: it *must* be one. Please, people, don't overflow the 
gcc development list with this kind of discussion. I feel guilty because 
of that, by the way: please, accept my apologies. My original question 
was *only* about consistency between the real case (pow) and the complex 
case (cpow, __builtin_cpow, std::complex::pow).

Paolo.