On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:22:11AM +0200, Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > (BTW: It would be fine with me if 0.0^^0.0 was NaN -- that's a > completely different case than the one at hand: pow on integers.)
That's even worse. So 0^0=1 if 0 is regarded as an integer, and 0^0=NaN if 0 is regarded as a real? That's even more horrible than my (admittedly not very good) argument that 0^0 should not be 1. [...] > (Also note that the 'laws of physics' typically give rise to piecewise > analytic functions, and if you only consider analytic functions, 0 ^ 0 > = 1 is actually the right answer.) Are you sure about this? I'm pretty sure it's easy to come up with analytic functions of the form f(x)^g(x) where f(0)=g(0)=0, for which the limit as x->0 can be made to approach whatever number you choose. If you happen to be working with a function of that form, 0^0=1 may not be the right answer at all! T -- The fact that anyone still uses AOL shows that even the presence of options doesn't stop some people from picking the pessimal one. - Mike Ellis
