From @AlexDaniel

*Code​:*
say 0**NaN;
say 1**NaN;
say 2**NaN;

*Output​:*
NaN
1
NaN

See also IRC log​: https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2016-10-16#i_13412758

From @zoffixznet

More, at nqp level​:

<Zoffix> m​: use nqp; dd nqp​::pow_n(NaN, 0e0)
<camelia> rakudo-moar 2b5226​: OUTPUT«1e0␤»
<Zoffix> m​: use nqp; dd nqp​::pow_n(1e0, NaN)
<camelia> rakudo-moar 2b5226​: OUTPUT«1e0␤»

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From @zoffixznet

This was uncovered by coverage work and the num case is fudged in Raku/roast@47aba2d2ea

Once fixed, more tests will be needed for this ticket, but please unfudge that test as well.

From @AlexDaniel

Just for the record, another case​:

Code​:
say NaN**0

Output​:
1

From @usev6

On Sun Oct 16 11​:07​:16 2016, alex.jakimenko@​gmail.com wrote​:

Just for the record, another case​:

Code​:
say NaN**0

Output​:
1

There was an earlier RT for this one (coming to the conclusion that 1 is a reasonable answer here)​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=124450. It has a link to a discussion from stackoverflow -- to me the following comment
was interesting​: http://stackoverflow.com/a/17865226

From @zoffixznet

So that leaves nqp​::pow_n(1e0, NaN) == 1e0. Is that also part of IEEE?

I see that Perl 5 gives a NaN for NaN**0, but 1 for 1**NaN​:

zoffix@​VirtualBox​:~$ perl -wlE 'say -sin(9**9**9)**0'
NaN
zoffix@​VirtualBox​:~$ perl -wlE 'say 1**-sin(9**9**9)'
1

On Mon Oct 17 00​:25​:15 2016, bartolin@​gmx.de wrote​:

On Sun Oct 16 11​:07​:16 2016, alex.jakimenko@​gmail.com wrote​:

Just for the record, another case​:

Code​:
say NaN**0

Output​:
1

There was an earlier RT for this one (coming to the conclusion that 1
is a reasonable answer here)​:
https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=124450. It has a link to a
discussion from stackoverflow -- to me the following comment
was interesting​: http://stackoverflow.com/a/17865226

From @zoffixznet

I took a gander at 2008 IEEE 754 standard and section "9.2.1 Special values" has this to say​:

  pow (x, ±0) is 1 for any x (even a zero, quiet NaN, or infinity)
  pow (+1, y) is 1 for any y (even a quiet NaN)

So our behaviour is correct. Rejecting.

On Mon Oct 17 03​:05​:33 2016, cpan@​zoffix.com wrote​:

So that leaves nqp​::pow_n(1e0, NaN) == 1e0. Is that also part of IEEE?

I see that Perl 5 gives a NaN for NaN**0, but 1 for 1**NaN​:

zoffix@​VirtualBox​:~$ perl -wlE 'say -sin(9**9**9)**0'
NaN
zoffix@​VirtualBox​:~$ perl -wlE 'say 1**-sin(9**9**9)'
1

On Mon Oct 17 00​:25​:15 2016, bartolin@​gmx.de wrote​:

On Sun Oct 16 11​:07​:16 2016, alex.jakimenko@​gmail.com wrote​:

Just for the record, another case​:

Code​:
say NaN**0

Output​:
1

There was an earlier RT for this one (coming to the conclusion that 1
is a reasonable answer here)​:
https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=124450. It has a link to a
discussion from stackoverflow -- to me the following comment
was interesting​: http://stackoverflow.com/a/17865226

@zoffixznet - Status changed from 'open' to 'rejected'