[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Constrain additional overloads of `pow` for `complex` harder (PR #110235)

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -1097,20 +1097,20 @@ inline _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI complex<_Tp> pow(const complex<_Tp>& __x, const com
   return std::exp(__y * std::log(__x));
 }
 
-template <class _Tp, class _Up>
+template <class _Tp, class _Up, __enable_if_t<is_floating_point<_Tp>::value && is_floating_point<_Up>::value, int> = 0>
 inline _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI complex<typename __promote<_Tp, _Up>::type>
 pow(const complex<_Tp>& __x, const complex<_Up>& __y) {
   typedef complex<typename __promote<_Tp, _Up>::type> result_type;
   return std::pow(result_type(__x), result_type(__y));
 }
 
-template <class _Tp, class _Up, __enable_if_t<is_arithmetic<_Up>::value, int> = 0>
+template <class _Tp, class _Up, __enable_if_t<is_floating_point<_Tp>::value && is_arithmetic<_Up>::value, int> = 0>
 inline _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI complex<typename __promote<_Tp, _Up>::type> pow(const complex<_Tp>& __x, const _Up& __y) {
   typedef complex<typename __promote<_Tp, _Up>::type> result_type;
   return std::pow(result_type(__x), result_type(__y));
 }
 
-template <class _Tp, class _Up, __enable_if_t<is_arithmetic<_Tp>::value, int> = 0>
----------------
ldionne wrote:

Is there a reason why this isn't an issue for e.g. `std::asinh(std::complex<T>)` defined below? I'm wary of trying to work around something that is explicitly unspecified in the Standard.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110235