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

[Ronny Peine]

Well, you are right, this discussion becomes a bit off topic.
I think 0^0 should be 1 in the complex case, too. Otherwise the complex
and real definitions would collide.
Example:

use complex number 0+i*0 then this should be handled equivalent to the
real number 0. Otherwise the programmer would get quite irritated if he
transforms real numbers into equivalent complex numbers (a -> a+i*0).

> Paolo Carlini wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>>
>