"Stavros Macrakis" <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> writes:
...
> Incidentally 1^inf => und differs from IEEE 754 since 1^inf => 1 there.
>
> I would be interested to understand why IEEE 754 did this. It looks like a bug to me,
> since (1-epsilon)^inf = 0 and (1+epsilon)^inf = inf, for arbitrarily small positive
> epsilon.
I'm don't know why IEEE 754 did this, but it looks reasonable to me,
since 1 is not 1-epsilon or 1+epsilon. I think it would be reasonable
to treat 1^inf and 1.0^inf differently, and let 1^inf=1 and
1.0^inf=nan or und.
Jay