Re: Table 4 proposal version 0.2...

[John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michel, Juergen, P1788

On 5 Apr 2012, at 16:18, Michel Hack wrote:
> Well, 754-2008 deliberately says nothing about x^y; instead, it
> offers a set of interpretations, pown, powr and pow -- with the
> latter deliberately treating integral floating-point values
> specially, because some programming environments expected that.
> 
> In John's scenario the powr function would have been appropriate.
> 
> Note that 1788 also distinguishes a family of pown() functions, and
> the pow() function which is defined like 754's powr.  The name "powr"
> is unfortunately ambiguous, and 1788 uses it to denote a pown-like
> family with exact rational exponents, not 754's real exponents.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of 754's "powr", maybe also Juergen wasn't -- I think he introduced P1788's current powr(x,p,q) = x^(p/q). 

We should rename that. How about "powrat"?

John Pryce