Please rid me of this goto

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 24.06.2016 08:11, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:22:11AM +0200, Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
>> (BTW: It would be fine with me if 0.0^^0.0 was NaN -- that's a
>> completely different case than the one at hand: pow on integers.)
>
> That's even worse. So 0^0=1 if 0 is regarded as an integer, and 0^0=NaN
> if 0 is regarded as a real?

A 'double'.

> That's even more horrible than my
> (admittedly not very good) argument that 0^0 should not be 1.
> ...

0.0^^0 should certainly be 1, so I do think it makes sense to have 
0.0^^0.0 = 1 too.

>
> [...]
>> (Also note that the 'laws of physics' typically give rise to piecewise
>> analytic functions, and if you only consider analytic functions, 0 ^ 0
>> = 1 is actually the right answer.)
>
> Are you sure about this? ...

rinconmatematico.com/foros/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=61041.0;attach=10948