Quoting Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes. de>:
Luis Zarrabeitia schrieb:
1
That 0^0 should be a nan or exception, I guess, but not 1.
No, that's correct for floats. Read the wikipedia article or the C99
standard for more information.
>>0**0
That 0^0 should be a nan or exception, I guess, but not 1.
standard for more information.
C99.)
Don't take me wrong, I believe you... but I would really want to see the logic
behind that. I pretty much like the NaNs and Infs (and don't really understand
why python raises float division errors instead of them), but to have errors
pass with absolute silence seems dangerous even if it is useful sometimes
(Vandermonde example). I think I'd rather have python returning NaNs and
violating C99 on the 0**0=1, than to have 0**0=1 and not return NaNs.
--
Luis Zarrabeitia
Facultad de Matemática y Computación, UH
--
"Al mundo nuevo corresponde la Universidad nueva"
UNIVERSIDAD DE LA HABANA
280 aniversario