CTFE ^^ (pow)

[Guillaume Piolat]

On Saturday, 24 March 2018 at 16:37:06 UTC, Manu wrote:
> I'm not sure why I seem to have to defend the idea that it's a 
> *great
> thing* that D (in theory; according to the advertising 
> brochure) does
> away with these requirements.

Manu is not the only one who has to write such programs because 
of ^^ (log, exp, cosh, sinh, tanh... need pow to be CTFE to be 
CTFE themselves).
It's a lot more unconvenient, and plain different semantics 
(can't parameterize the table based on a compile-time value) when 
compared to having working CTFE.