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

[kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)]

dewar@adacore.com (Robert Dewar)  wrote on 07.03.05 in <422CFBA7.8080001@adacore.com>:

> Ronny Peine wrote:
>
> > Sorry for this, maybe i should sleep :) (It's 2 o'clock here)
> > But as i know of 0^0 is defined as 1 in every lecture i had so far.
>
> Were these math classes, or CS classes.

Let's just say that this didn't happen in any of the German math classes I  
ever took, school or uni. This is in fact a classic example of this type  
of behaviour.

> Generally when you have a situation like this, where the value of
> the function is different depending on how you approach the limit,
> you prefer to simply say that the function is undefined at that
> point.

And that's how it was always taught to me.


This is, of course, a different question from what a library should  
implement ... though I must say if I were interested in NaNs at all for a  
given problem, I'd be disappointed by any such library that didn't return  
a NaN for 0^0, and of any language standard saying so - I'd certainly  
consider a result of 1 wrong in the general case.

MfG Kai