[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: EXPT-ZERO-ZERO (Version 1)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: EXPT-ZERO-ZERO (Version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 17:07 EST
- Cc: KMP@symbolics.com, CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu, Cyphers@JASPER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- In-reply-to: <890316-211042-6708@Xerox>
Date: 16 Mar 89 21:10 PST
Kent, do you want to proceed with this one? I don't think it is necessary
or even a good idea. What do other programming languages do?
If you do, I think we should leave (EXPT 0 0) = 1 and (EXPT 0.0 0) = 1 and
only deal with (EXPT 0.0 0.0) and (EXPT 0 0.0).
Let's table it.
I asked a bunch of the people here about it and they didn't really buy
all the arguments advanced for why it was such a good idea to have 1
come out, but they didn't really care a lot since it was pretty easy to
special case zero before it ever got into EXPT in the first place.
Doesn't this fit into the ERRORS-IN-NUMBERS-CHAPTER spectrum?
If we were going to pursue it, I guess it could.