Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:15:51 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc: rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com, DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: libm sources from cyberoptics
In-Reply-To: <199906090818.KAA09460@mars.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990609131510.19031C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> Well, as lim(x^0) = 1, in one way it does make sense to define 0^0 = 1,
>          x->0+
> 
> however the behaviour of lim(x^0) isn't as clearcut (from my cursory 
>                          x->0-
> 
> examination). 
> 
> _If_ lim(x^0) = 1,  then I would say 0^0 should be defined as 1,
>      x->0-

Perhaps it would be a good idea to see what other libraries do in that 
case.