Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #38337
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Decimal 0**0 |
| Date | 2013-02-07 03:38 -0500 |
| References | <5110fa5c$0$29982$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <urf6h8hskvc5hf04d8js2n7kgv653bs976@4ax.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1442.1360226325.2939.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 2/7/2013 12:47 AM, Tim Roberts wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: >> >> Does anyone have an explanation why Decimal 0**0 behaves so differently from >> float 0**0? >> ... >> I am familiar with the arguments for treating 0**0 as 0, or undefined, but >> thought that except for specialist use-cases, it was standard practice for >> programming languages to have 0**0 return 1. According to Wikipedia, the >> IEEE 754 standard is for "pow" to return 1, although languages can define a >> separate "powr" function to return a NAN. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_power_of_zero >> >> I suspect this is a bug in Decimal's interpretation of the standard. Can >> anyone comment? > > I don't think Decimal ever promised to adhere to IEEE 754, did it? No, it follows IBM’s General Decimal Arithmetic Specification, The General Decimal Arithmetic Specification. IEEE standard 854-1987, Unofficial IEEE 854 Text. links at end of intro in doc -- Terry Jan Reedy
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Decimal 0**0 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-05 23:26 +1100
Re: Decimal 0**0 Stefan Krah <stefan@bytereef.org> - 2013-02-05 14:05 +0100
Re: Decimal 0**0 Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2013-02-06 21:47 -0800
Re: Decimal 0**0 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-02-07 03:38 -0500
Re: Decimal 0**0 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-08 10:31 +1100
csiph-web