Re: [pure-lang-users] math.pure

[Eddie R. <er...@bm...>]

On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 15:55 +0200, Albert Graef wrote:

> >   > (expt -4.0 +inf.0)
> >   +inf.0

> Pure). The first result actually makes sense, but not the second. :)

Yea, that's an indeterminate result there. I guess they determined one
for us there :-?

> I'm beginning to think that Scheme makes more sense in that it returns 
> complex results for complex inputs, and real results (possibly nan for 
> undefined cases) for real inputs. The necessary changes to do it the 
> Scheme way in Pure should in fact be straightforward. Is that what 
> everybody wants?

+1 

> I also have to do something about (0+:0)^0; it returns nan+:nan now, 
> which isn't appropriate.

Back to scheme:
  > (expt 0+0i 0)
  1
  > (expt 0.0+0.0i 0)
  1
  > (expt 0.0+0.0i 0.0)
  +nan.0+nan.0i

e.r.