Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] John Cowan's votes and rationales on the seventh ballot

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

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.

-- 
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports