[#4522] Undefined Errno::EPROTO and the like raises NameError — "Florian Frank" <flori@...>
Hi,
[#4533] giving acces readline to rl_line_buffer — "Cs. Henk" <csaba-ml@...>
Hi!
[#4548] Ruby 1.8.2 array of hash entries functions incorrectly — noreply@...
Bugs item #1613, was opened at 2005-03-09 19:49
[#4561] rb_reg_quote weirdness — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...>
(Two weirdnesses in one day.)
Hi,
[#4567] Immutable Ropes — Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-core@...>
Note how I didn't write "Immutable Strings" in the subject.
[#4575] Allowing "?" in struct members — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#4587] 0**0==1? — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
[#4595] New block syntax — Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@...>
I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've
Daniel Amelang wrote:
Hi --
On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
Hey David, I think that we've had some misunderstandings due to
Hi --
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 20:55, David A. Black wrote:
On Sunday 20 March 2005 21:31, Daniel Amelang wrote:
[#4601] Re: New block syntax — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
> -----Original Message-----
[#4611] want_object? - possible? — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Hi all,
[#4619] Re: want_object? - possible? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
--- nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
Hi --
On 3/24/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On 4/14/05, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2005, at 22:20, Mark Hubbart wrote:
On 4/15/05, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
[#4622] tempfile.rb — Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@...>
Hi,
[#4648] about REXML::Encoding — speakillof <speakillof@...>
Hi.
On Thursday 31 March 2005 09:44, speakillof wrote:
Hi.
I've tested, applied, and committed your Encoding patch, Nobu.
Hi,
Re: 0**0==1?
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Alexandru Popescu wrote:
> [quote Christian Neukirchen::on 3/19/2005 3:00 PM]
>> Bertram Scharpf <lists@bertram-scharpf.de> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> this is difficult to feed Google with:
>>>
>>>>> 0**0
>>> => 1
>>>>> 0**0.0
>>> => 1.0
>>>>> 0.0**0
>>> => 1.0
>>>>> 0.0**0.0
>>> => 1.0
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the result be a NaN?
>>
[...]
>
> Theoretically speaking any number (the rule does not exclude 0) at power 0 is 1.
>
Maybe the C standard can be of some help:
In the C standard, in normative Annex F (IEC 60559 floating-point
arithmetic), section F.9.4.4 (The pow function) it says:
pow(x, +/-0) returns 1 for any x, even a NaN.
I guess Ruby uses "pow" for Float#**.
/Johan Holmberg