Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-03-09 17:37:59 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | Well, mathematically, you can distinguish these two functions: | > | | > | powrr: RxR -> R (not defined on (0,0) in particular) | > | | > | and | > | | > | powrz: RxZ -> R (where powint(0,0) = 1) | > | | > | and even other two functions, where R is replaced by C (the complex | > | numbers). Unfortunately, the C language doesn't distinguish them. | > | > That is no reason for the compiler not to distinguish them. There are | > plenty of stuff the C language does not distinguish but the compiler | > has to. | | Do you mean that the compiler should detect if the second argument | comes from an integer type?
No. I mean when I call powi() either through built-ins or appropriate overload (several programming languages do so), I expect sane semantics. | > | Yes, and to compute complex^integer, you need to use cpow(), AFAIK. | > | > No, you don't need cpow(). | | From this point of view, the math library is useless as one can | reimplement it entirely. :) I don't see how that follows from my statement. | | > | I think this is the reason why cpow((0,0),(0,0)) should return 1, | > | just like pow(0,0). | > | > That is a bogus reason. | | No more than any other reason. The asseryion that 0^0 is mathematically undefined is not a bogus reason. It is a fact. -- Gaby
