Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

[David Carlton <david dot carlton at sun dot com>]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:54:03 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> said:
> Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@vinc17.org> writes:
> | On 2005-03-10 01:01:18 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> | > The asseryion that 0^0 is mathematically undefined is not a bogus
> | > reason. It is a fact.
> | 
> | I disagree. One can mathematically define 0^0 as 1. One often does
> | this.

> what you do is to set a local convention regardless of all
> mathematical absurdities you run into.

No, you follow the convention that all mathematicians that I know of
follow, because it's generally recognized as the most useful one.
Maybe there are mathematical subcultures in which a different
convention (or no convention) is followed; I haven't spent time in
such cultures.  But if it's a "local convention", then it's one for a
very large value of "local".

David Carlton
david.carlton@sun.com