Re: More efficient "dbl_raise"

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Ethan Merritt wrote:
> I take that to mean you agree that we have no basis on which to say
> that dbl_raise is "better" than pow.

Other than pow() handles NaN and dbl_raise() hangs for five minutes, right.

> Therefore the comment is correct, and nothing needs to be changed.

"is this really useful?" is a comment?

Dan