This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC] What to do for complex::pow(0, 0)

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:53:59 -0800
Subject: Re: [RFC] What to do for complex::pow(0, 0)
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <42317B89.6070107@suse.de> <m3zmx9y0zp.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <4232B27F.2070602@suse.de>

Paolo Carlini wrote:

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

I strongly believe -2- is the wrong thing to do.

Fine! Therefore I'm going to implement -1-, just minor tweaks.

FWIW, my preference would be to match cpow, in the absence of clear guidance from the ISO C++ committee. I think consistency between the C and C++ runtimes is desirable, unless explicitly disallowed.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] What to do for complex::pow(0, 0)
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- [RFC] What to do for complex::pow(0, 0)
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [RFC] What to do for complex::pow(0, 0)
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: [RFC] What to do for complex::pow(0, 0)
  - From: Paolo Carlini

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]