Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 15:26 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | On 2005-03-12 02:59:46 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > You probably noticed that in the polynomial expansion, you are using | > | > an integer power -- which everybody agrees on yield 1 at the limit. | > | > | > | > I'm tlaking about 0^0, when you look at the limit of function x^y | > | > -- which is closer to cpow() tgan powi(). Did you miss that? | > | | > | When one uses the power notation in mathematics, one (almost) never | > | says when the context is a function R x R -> R or R x Z -> R or | > | whatever. | > | > That is (almost) absolutely false. | > | > | The problem is the same in ISO C99 (and probably other | > | languages), | > | > Other languages do make the distinction. That C99 did not have the | > syntax for that is a defect rather than virtue. Examples have been | > provided, but I guess you prefer to ignore them. | > | > -- Gaby | | As much fun as it is to get random messages on the gcc mailing list
not as much as getting one from you. The issue has to do with whatsemantics GCC should implement. -- Gaby
