On 8/2/10, Paul Bowyer <pbowyer at olynet.com> wrote:
> So it looks like there is a partial fix for the bug because 0^0 produces
> an error message but when 0^i or when
> assume i >= 0 is given followed by 0^i, the error still shows up. Am I
> correct in this assumption?
I seem to recall from a CVS log message that the 0^foo
problem was only partially solved, because it turned out
to be more complicated than anticipated.
I don't know what are the plans of Dieter Kaiser who was
working on it.
best,
Robert Dodier