[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] John Cowan's votes and rationales on the seventh ballot
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Mark H Weaver <mhw@x> wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 01:58 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>> Mark H Weaver scripsit:
>>> On the contrary, (expt<anything> 0) should yield an exact 1
>> Are you sure? What about (expt +nan.0 0)?
> Yes, (expt +nan.0 0) => 1. When the exponent is an exact non-negative
> integer, then (expt z k) may be defined as (* z z z z ...) with 'k'
> occurrences of 'z'. Therefore (expt z 0) => (*) => 1.
That definition only applies when z is a number.
Scheme-reports mailing list