On 2010-03-18 15:49:05 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > And the same rule on pow(-0, y) is present in 754-2008 (I don't know > whether this was deliberately following the C definition, or deciding > independently that this was the right definition, but you may know as a > listed member of the balloting committee).
There were many discussions concerning the pow() function and several changes, but I don't know who decided at the end. I think that anyone agreed with pow(-0, y) returning +0 for y > 0 not an odd integer (due to the absence of an unsigned 0, +0 is generally chosen). The case pow(-1,inf) was much more controversial (it seems that most people wanted NaN, while I preferred the C behavior for consistency with the large arguments). Also note that there are 3 power functions: pown, pow and powr. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
