Code: import std.stdio; import std.math; void main(string[] args) { writefln("test: %s%6s", "pow()", "^^"); writefln("-3^^0: %s%10s", pow(-3, 0), -3^^0); writefln("-2^^0: %s%10s", pow(-2, 0), -2^^0); writefln("-1^^0: %s%10s", pow(-1, 0), -1^^0); writefln(" 0^^0: %s%10s", pow( 0, 0), 0^^0); writefln(" 1^^0: %s%10s", pow( 1, 0), 1^^0); writefln(" 2^^0: %s%10s", pow( 2, 0), 2^^0); writefln(" 3^^0: %s%10s", pow( 3, 0), 3^^0); } Outputs: test: pow() ^^ -3^^0: 1 -1 -2^^0: 1 -1 -1^^0: 1 -1 0^^0: 1 1 1^^0: 1 1 2^^0: 1 1 3^^0: 1 1 Note that zero, and positive to the power of 0 match the return value of pow(). But negative numbers to the power of 0 don't. Marking as major because this could cause confusion. Regards
Hmm... actually, I think not now. Part of the confusion was that it gets parsed down like so: => -3 ^^ 0 => -(3 ^^ 0) => -(1) When I expected it to be: => -3 ^^ 0 => ((-3) ^^ 0) => (1) I'll assume that this behaviour is normal, sorry for the noise. :~)
I am not saying this is bad or good, but I want to show what Python 2.6.6 does (the same as D, it seems): >>> -1**0 -1 >>> pow(-1, 0) 1 (I recall some threads about this behaviour in the Python newsgroups, some person was not happy of it).
The negation and exponentiation operators have the same relative precedence in D as in mathematics. I would be extremely surprised if I wrote -2^^2 and got 4. Correcting the resolution of this bug, since nothing was fixed.