I've done some more thinking about the overflow exceptions. The C-runtime implementations vary on whether or not they set errno to ERANGE. They do all seem to return HUGE_VAL though. Perhaps the integer implementation should not overflow, but instead return INT_MAX.

There are also inconsistent implementations of 0**0. Microsoft seems to return 1.

The most important part is to be consistent. Perhaps you're right not to raise an exception in this case and instead return INT_MAX, but then the float and double variants my behave consistently and return the largest possible value.

I took a quick look at the patch. It looks like everything is OK. You even took the time to update the documentation. Nice!

I'll be doing a bit of testing before I check in the changes, but rest assured that this will be part of the 2.28.1 release. :)

I would have felt bad if I only did the fun part

I've checked in these changes in revision 1807.

Thanks,

Andreas