Re: [Rd] 0 ^ NaN == Inf, why?

From: John Chambers <jmc_at_r-project.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:55:21 -0400

A small PS:

John Chambers wrote:
>
> Along the line, notice that both R_pow and pow give 0^0 as 1. (Just at
> a guess, C might give 0^-0 as Inf, but I don't know how to test that in R.)
>
I tried a little harder, and apparently the guess is wrong. It seems that pow(0, -0) is 1 in C. Would seem better to either have pow(0,0) and pow(0,-0) both be NaN or else 1 and Inf, but ...
> John
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>
>



R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Sat 25 Oct 2008 - 20:02:47 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Mon 27 Oct 2008 - 16:30:35 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive