Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] John Cowan's votes and rationales on the seventh ballot
Mark H Weaver 19 Sep 2012 06:39 UTC
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.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
